Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 24th day of June, That, in the case of the following Bill, provisions (1), (2), and (3) of the said Order, and such Standing Orders as are applicable to the Bill, have been complied with, namely:

London Passenger Transport Board (Finance) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time.

Hoylake Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (ASSISTANCE).

Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of the shipping subsidy paid out to date, giving the names of the shipowners, the port of destination, and the amounts in each case?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): A total sum of £348,363 has been paid out to shipowners in respect of claims for voyages completed in the first quarter of the year. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am considering in what form information regarding the distribution of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy should be published, but as regards the payments made to date I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 9–14 of the Subsidy Scheme (Cmd. 4754), from which he will see that those payments are of an interim character and will be subject to adjustment at the end of the year.

Miss WARD: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the agreement to carry three officers in ships over 2,750 tons is an operative agreement which must be kept in order to qualify for a subsidy under the Government's tramp shipping scheme?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in communication with the National Maritime Board with a view to ascertaining whether there is any operative agreement regarding the number of deck officers to be carried on board ship.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House when he will have the information?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If a further question is put down, I hope to be able to give an answer next week.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is not a record of the agreement sent to the Board of Trade in order that it may be recorded there?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question I was asked was as to the operative agreement, and I have given the only information I can give with regard to the operative agreement.

Mr. MACLEAN: But is it not the rule of the Board of Trade that there must be three officers? I think that is the sense of the question. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is so or not?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Tight hon. Gentleman see to it that the firms which get the subsidy conform to the regulations laid down by the Maritime Board?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is another question. That is already provided for in the arrangement.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I have a reply to my supplementary question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot reply to that question. It is not the question on the Paper.

Miss WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a suitable agreement to be operative between the two parties concerned?

KRAFT PAPER (IMPORTS).

Mr. BURNETT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the weight and value of imports of kraft paper from Finland, Sweden, and Norway for the first four months of 1933, 1934 and 1935?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information is given on page 101 of the issue of the Trade and Navigation Accounts for April last.

OBSOLETE TONNAGE (SCRAP PRICES).

Miss WARD: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make an inquiry to ascertain to what extent prices for scrap are controlled by agreement between firms who purchase tonnage for breaking up?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the total amount of scrap derived from the demolition of obsolete tonnage represents only a small proportion of the total supplies of scrap I cannot usefully undertake the enquiry suggested.

Miss WARD: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House as to the difference in price between the amount paid by Italian ship breakers and British firms who buy ships to break up? Is he aware that there is a very great discrepancy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend puts down a question on that point, I will gladly give her such information as I can collect.

RETAIL TRADE (ANNUAL VALUE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the basis of his calculation of the annual retail trade of this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sending the hon. Member reprints of two articles from the Board of Trade Journal dealing with retail trade, on a monthly and on an annual basis, which contain information of the kind desired.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling that the basis of calculation is not satisfactory, and, in view of the fact that we are able to secure statistics about every other industry, is it not possible to go into this problem and secure statistics about the retail trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will make some suggestions for the improvement of these returns, I will gladly consider them.

FACTORIES, GREAT WEST ROAD.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many factories have been built on the
Great West Road; and whether he can furnish any information as to the number of persons employed therein?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: For the purpose of the "Survey of Industrial Development" particulars of factories opened have only been recorded from 1932 onwards. During the last three years the number of new factories designed to provide employment for at least 25 workpeople of which the address was given as the Great West Road (between Gunnersbury Avenue and the Bath Road) was seven, the employment provided being between 500 and 600 persons.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Can you indicate, Mr. Speaker, on whose authority a question addressed to the Home Secretary, who has the information, is transferred to the President of the Board of Trade, who does not possess it?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the Department which has the information which gives the answer.

TRADE CATALOGUES (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. T. SMITH: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Customs have decided that a trade catalogue of no intrinsic value, the weight of which does not exceed eight ounces, shall be duty free, and that most trade catalogues weigh more than eight ounces, has no intrinsic value, but are subject to duty; how the duty on these catalogues for which no charge is made is assessed; and whether, in view of the necessity of British firms being kept supplied with these catalogues, he will take steps to have this impediment in the way of trade removed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Trade catalogues other than such as are imported by post in a packet not exceeding eight ounces in gross weight are subject to duty under the provisions of the Import Duties (Exemption) (No. 2) Order, 1934, and any representations for an amendment of those provisions should be addressed to the Import Duties Advisory Committee by the interests concerned. I am informed, however, that the majority of the catalogues sent by post from abroad to prospective purchasers in this country are in fact below the eight ounce limit. Where that limit is exceeded the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in
assessing the value have regard, as the law directs, to all relevant considerations, including the declared value and the usual cost of production of such articles.

CONGO BASIN TREATIES.

Mr. CHORLTON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative imports of textiles into African countries concerned in the Congo Basin Treaties from Japan and the United Kingdom for 1924 and 1934?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving

STATEMENT showing the quantity and value of imports of Cotton Piece Goods into the under-mentioned countries covered by the Congo Basin Treaties (distinguishing imports of United Kingdom and Japanese origin) during the years 1924 and 1934.


—
Quantity.
Value.


1924.
1934.
1924.
1934.


Cotton Piece Goods:


(In Thousand Yards.)
(In Thousand £.)


Kenya and Uganda:








Total
…
…
37,005
53,177
1,349
691


Of which from:








United Kingdom
…
…
10,739
4,917
515
139


Japan
…
…
12,614
46,163
352
499


Tanganyika:








Total
…
…
25,051
38,614
812
493


Of which from:








United Kingdom
…
…
1,174
2,752
48
66


Japan
…
…
1,818
33,081
48
368


Nyasaland:








Total
…
…
7,070
9,199
209
124


Of which from:








United Kingdom
…
…
4,989
755
143
20


Japan
…
…
—
7,989
—
94


Zanzibar:








Total
…
…
10,682
4,537
377
76


Of which from:








United Kingdom
…
…
3,495
1,526
127
36


Japan
…
…
2,943
2,242
75
24


Note.—Imports of woollen and silk piece goods are of relatively little importance. Particulars of imports of artificial silk piece goods have not been included, as they are not available for 1924.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the period of examination of the situation arising from the Congo Basin convention will be concluded; and what action is contemplated?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter is being pursued as expeditiously as possible, but I am afraid that I am not able at present to name a date on which His Majesty's

the desired information in respect of cotton piece goods for those British territories which lie wholly within the zone covered by the Congo Basin Treaties. Particulars in respect of the non-British territories are not yet available for 1934.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what action has been taken by the Government on these treaties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is another question on that subject on the Paper.

Following is the statement:

Government will be in a position to reach conclusions.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Why should this relic of the free trade era be allowed indefinitely to continue to embarrass British trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of the parentage of these proposals. We have felt it necessary to examine three treaties—
Berlin, Brussels, and St. Germains—and the earliest of them dates back to 1885. The wording of the documents is obscure and considerable research is necessary into the records of the proceedings of the Conference preceding the conclusion of the Treaty in order to obtain a complete account both of the origin and the inception of the treaties. It is necessary to expend a good deal of time on this research.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In any case, does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it will be necessary to call a conference, and is it not desirable to call a conference without further delay while these technical questions are being examined?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I realise that a conference may become necessary, but it would be a pity to have a conference with the information incomplete.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the Congo Basin Treaty is due for re-examination this year, and what is the intention of the Government in connection with it?

Mr. BAILEY: Is it not a fact that this matter was raised in the House of Commons as far back as 1st July, 1932, and that since then the trade position has greatly deteriorated, and, in view of those facts, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement at any rate before the Recess?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that is at all likely. There has been very sharp difference of opinion in Lancashire itself as to the bearing that these treaties have on Lancashire trade.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the position of Lancashire has completely changed, as is evidenced by resolutions of Chambers of Commerce passed in the last few months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am well aware that there has been a change of opinion, but that change of opinion has come very late in the day.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: What action is contemplated?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not contemplating any action until the information on the subject is complete; otherwise, the action taken might be against the interests of the country.

TEA REGULATION SCHEME.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the operation of the tea restriction scheme during the past two years has done little more than maintain the average price level which existed in the second quarter of 1933, when the scheme was introduced, and to raise which substantially was understood to be the purpose of the scheme; and what further steps, if any, the Government proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The primary object of the Tea Regulation Scheme is to restore equilibrium between supply and demand. I would draw attention to the fact that market prices in the second quarter of 1933, when the scheme came into operation, were already substantially higher than in the third quarter of 1932, when negotiations relating to the scheme began. Since the second quarter of 1933, prices have in general been at a still higher level, and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom sees no reason for initiating any action in the matter. The scheme is under the management of the International Tea Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (AIR DUTY AND TRAINING).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 12.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the nature of the certificate to be signed by officers or men before taking flights as passengers or observers in Royal Air Force aeroplanes; whether it is enforced for the Regular Army or Territorials, and particularly for flights which the Regulars or Territorials are ordered or encouraged to take as part of their duty, training, or co-operation with the Royal Air Force; and whether he will consider the abolition of this certificate?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Officers and men of the Regular or Territorial Army who undertake flights in Royal Air Force machines as part of their duty or training under proper military authority are not required to sign any certificate. In such circumstances they are regarded as on duty for the purposes of disability retired pay and widows', etc., pensions granted under the pay war-
rant. Where, however, military personnel wish to make a flight in a Royal Air Force machine when not on duty, they are required to sign a certificate indemnifying the Air Council and any person in the service of the Crown against any claim in respect of loss or injury (including death) arising out of the flight.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the Financial Secretary state whether it is true that Territorial officers and men who go on courses still have to sign a certificate?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir, not if they are on duty. If they have a certificate signed by their commanding officer, they are not expected and ought not to be called on to sign a certificate presented by the Air Force.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it to be understood that what they require is a certificate from their commanding officer that they are proceeding on duty for a flight?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the Army Council Instruction 500 of 1926, he will see the position laid down in detail; but, roughly, it is that if they are on duty they are not expected to sign the certificate which is presented to them in the normal way by the Air Force when they are not on duty.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: On whom does the responsibility rest when Air Force machines are sent to a Territorial unit to give a demonstration? If there were an accident, who would be responsible, the air officer or the officer commanding the Territorials?

Mr. HACKING: If it is a question of an accident to an Air Force machine, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better address a question to the Air Ministry.

Sir C. MacANDREW: But if an accident happened to a man on the ground? That is my point.

Mr. HACKING: Clearly that does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HEALTH SERVICES.

Mr. GUY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on Scottish Health Services?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The Committee on Scottish Health Services have completed the taking of evidence over the very wide field covered by the remit; the consideration of the evidence and the preparation of a report will, as my hon. Friend will understand, require time.

Mr. GUY: Is there any possibility of this report being available before the end of the year?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think I can promise that.

PUBLIC AND HISTORICAL RECORDS.

Mr. LEONARD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the acts and decreets of the court of session and sheriff court records filed in Register House, Edinburgh, and their need of proper indexing and repair; and whether he is prepared to act on the recommendations in the Report of the Sheriff Court Records Committee of 1925?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 16 and 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the lack of adequate staff at the Register House, Edinburgh, for the proper cataloguing and indexing of historical documents of great importance; and whether, in particular, he proposes to take steps to ensure that the hundreds of volumes of the Register of Acts and Decreets of the Court of Session from the year 1542 to the year 1800 will be deciphered and published;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Sheriff Court's Records Committee in 1925, which disclosed an unsatisfactory condition of affairs and great masses of public records inaccessible and mouldering away; and, seeing that nothing has been done in many counties to remedy matters, what steps does he propose to take?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Register of Acts and Decreets of the
Court of Session, preserved in the General Register House, Edinburgh, is generally in a good state of repair and is fully indexed from the year 1810 onwards. In 1933 the staff of the Record Office was increased by three whole-time officers, in order to enable arrears of work to be overtaken. Progress is being made in the arrangement and indexing of old records, which can only be undertaken gradually by a trained staff, and the indexing of the Register of Acts and Decreets for years prior to 1810 will be dealt with as soon as circumstances allow. It is not contemplated that the Register should be published, as public requirements should be met if suitable indexes were available for reference in the Record Office. Sheriff Court records are not preserved in the Register House but locally in Sheriff Courts. In some cases they are in an unsatisfactory condition. Legislation would however be necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the Sheriff Court Records Committee, and this will be considered whenever opportunity offers.

Mr. LEONARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the amount received From the Treasury for this purpose and whether it is adequate; and, if it is not adequate to bring the records up to date in proper form, will he make observations to the Treasury in order to get an increase?

Sir G. COLLINS: If the work of these three officers is found insufficient for our needs, we shall certainly make representations for an increase.

Mr. MACLEAN: What would be the expense of resuming the publication of the documents?

Sir G. COLLINS: If the hon. Member would refer to the—

Mr. MACLEAN: I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman's own reply.

Sir G. COLLINS: Scottish interests in these matters do not attach as much importance to these old volumes as does the hon. Member. If he would pick up one or two of the old volumes, the hon. Member would realise that they could not possibly justify the spending of a large sum of money in reprinting.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that, although some of the documents may not
be of much particular interest, others may be of very great importance to the historical record of Scotland, and that it would be worth while spending money upon them?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is a matter of opinion. There may be records which would interest individuals. The expenditure of a large sum of money because of a single document in a voluminous mass of documents would not be justifiable.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have not the records of England been gone over in a very thorough manner and the documents that are important separated from those that are insignificant, and could not that be done for Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will make inquiries.

Mr. MACLEAN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that for lack of funds publication of such valuable historical documents as the Exchequer Rolls and the Treasurer's Accounts have had to be discontinued for many years past in Scotland; whether he is aware that the predecessor in 1932 specifically promised a deputation from the convention of burghs that the condition of affairs at the Register House, Edinburgh, would be urgently inquired into; and what steps he now proposes to take in the matter?

Sir G. COLLINS: Twenty-three volumes of the Exchequer Rolls, covering the period 1264–1600, have been published, and 11 volumes of the Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, covering the period 1473–1566. These volumes diminish in interest in later times, and publication of the Exchequer Rolls was discontinued in 1908, and of the Treasurer's Accounts in 1916, because of the greater importance of other work. As regards the second and third parts of the question, my predecessor in 1932 promised that a survey would be made of the unexamined sacks of papers (mostly Customs records) lying in the basement of the Register House, and that a staff reorganisation of the Register House, including the Record Office, would be carried out. Both these undertakings have been fulfilled, three whole-time officers having been added to the Record Office staff, on reorganisation, in 1933.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the work being brought up to date?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir.

NURSES (TRAINING).

Mr. GUY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on the training of nurses?

Mr. SKELTON: The Committee have completed the taking of evidence and are now considering their report.

ROADS AND MARINE WORKS, OUTER HEBRIDES (GRANTS).

Mr. THOMAS RAMSAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give figures showing the contributions made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland during each of the last four financial years ended March, 1935, towards road schemes in the Outer Hebrides?

Sir G. COLLINS: The contributions for the four years 1931 to 1934 were respectively:




£5,935




697




218




1,281


Total
…
£8,131

Mr. RAMSAY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give figures showing the contributions made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland during each of the last four financial years ended March, 1935, towards marine works in the Outer Hebrides, exclusive of the contribution made towards the construction of Lochboisdale Pier?

Sir G. COLLINS: Exclusive of a sum of approximately £8,000 paid towards the construction of Lochboisdale Pier, contributions of £112 10s. were made in 1932 towards marine works in the Outer Hebrides. No contributions were made in 1931, 1933 or 1934.

GLASGOW LOAN (CONVERSION).

Mr. LEONARD: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the Treasury letter of the 7th February to the City Chamberlain of Glasgow with regard to their conversion loan, the Treasury was, in fact, consulted on the terms of the proposed Glasgow issue; and whether the Treasury did or
did not consent to the terms proposed by the Bank of England?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The only interest of the Treasury in this matter arose from the fact that the proposed loan was an instance of the optional replacement of an existing issue by a new issue which would rank as a trustee security and involved an invitation to the public to subscribe new cash, and that, in the statements which I made on the 1st October, 1932, and the 13th January, 1933, I requested that, until further notice, such issues should not be made without my consent having been previously obtained. The Treasury letter of the 7th February related solely to this aspect of the matter, and had nothing to do with the terms of the proposed issue, for which Treasury assent was not necessary and was not sought.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ABERCYNON COLLIERY.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a large number of miners employed at the Abercynon colliery owned by the Powell Duffryn Colliery Company, have received notice to terminate their agreement, while others have already left their employment; whether he will take steps to ascertain the reason for the dismissal of these men; and whether the men now employed in these collieries will be retained in employment?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." I understand that the reduction in output at this mine is due to trade conditions, and that if these conditions improve, it is hoped to re-engage some of the men. I am informed that there is no present intention to issue further notices terminating engagements.

Mr. HALL: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that this is one of the collieries recently taken over by the combine, and, as with all the other collieries taken over by the combine, there is much anxiety owing to the dismissal of these men; and would he make representations to the combine
that they should make some statement as to their future employment policy?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I can make no further statement. The statement which I have is that the reduction is entirely due to the present trade conditions.

REORGANISATION COMMISSION.

Mr. G. HALL: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the cost, inclusive of the cost of persons seconded from other Government Departments, of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission for each year since the Commission was set up?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the answer involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The cost of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission (including the cost of officers seconded from the Mines Department and the cost of accommodation borne on the Vote of His Majesty's Office of Works) for each financial year to date is as follows:



£
s.
d.


1930–31
5,989
1
4


1931–32
21,567
15
8


1932–33
26,411
14
4


1933–34
28,991
2
2


1934–35
30,296
10
8


1935–36 (3 months to 30th June)
4,628
0
0



(estimated)

The above figures include fees and expenses paid to professional and technical agents, which, in certain circumstances are recoverable under the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The amounts so included are:






£
s.
d.


1932–33
…
…
…
8,836
6
0


1933–34
…
…
…
11,457
0
0


1934–35
…
…
…
11,650
0
0

No recoveries have been made to date.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Captain STRICKLAND: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give any estimate of the quantity of home-produced hydrocarbon oils suitable for propulsion use on road vehicles during the next 12 months from 8th August, 1935, and state how that estimate compares with such production during the past year?

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is estimated that about 60 million gallons of refined hydrocarbon oils suitable for propulsion use on road vehicles will have been produced in this country from indigenous materials during the year ending 8th August, 1935. Practically all of this will be motor spirit. It is difficult at present to give an estimate for the year ended 8th August, 1936, but the quantity is likely to be much higher than that for the present year, possibly to the extent of 50 per cent.

WORKMEN'S INSPECTIONS, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.

Mr. COCKS: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many examinations by workmen's inspectors were held in the Nottinghamshire coalfields during the past 12 months?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Fifty-nine such inspections were made in Nottinghamshire during the year ended 28th June last.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is the Secretary for Mines satisfied that men have the liberty of action in this coalfield to carry out Section 16; and is he aware that in many collieries they are afraid to work Section 16 because they are afraid of victimisation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: There is a further question on the paper on this subject.

Mr. COCKS: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many workmen's inspectors have been appointed by ballot in the Notts collieries during the past 12 months, and at what pits they have been appointed?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Workmen's inspectors are not required to be appointed by ballot, nor are the appointments required to be reported to the divisional inspector. In these circumstances I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for.

Mr. COCKS: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines in what collieries in Nottinghamshire there were workmen's inspections during the past 12 months; and in what collieries there were no such inspections?

Captain CROOKSHANK: During the 12 months ended 28th June the number of mines in Nottinghamshire at which in-
spections were made by workmen's inspectors was 22. There were 24 other mines at work in the county in which no such inspections were made. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those inspected.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not the fact that the accident rate in this coalfield has been the highest in the country, and will the Minister make inquiries to see that nothing is done by the owners by what amounts to intimidation to prevent inspections taking place?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am not aware of any such case.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister make inquiries as to whether intimidation is the deciding factor for or against the appointment of inspectors?

Mr. PALING: Is not the number of inspections ridiculously small for this coalfield, and, if so, is it not likely that there is some reason for that situation?

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. Gentleman has any representations that he wishes to make to me, I shall be happy to receive them.

Mr. PALING: They have been made often enough.

Following are the names:

The following are the names of the collieries in Nottinghamshire at which inspections were made by workmen's inspectors during the year ended 28th June, 1935:

Watnall, Brinsley, Selston, Moorgreen, Thoresby, Rufford, Mansfield, Clipstone, Kirkby, Radford, Bulwell, Bestwood, Welbeck, Gedling, Bilsthorpe, Silverhill, Blidworth, Hucknall No. 2, New London, Wollaton, Sherwood, Newstead.

HOURS OF WORK CONVENTION, 1931.

Mr. G. HALL: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the difficulties raised by His Majesty's Government which prevented the application of the convention on hours of work in coal mines adopted in 1931 have now been removed; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to ratify this convention?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The points raised by His Majesty's Government in respect of the Hours of Work (Coal Mines) Convention, 1931, have been satisfactorily met by a revision of the Convention at the International Labour Conference which concluded last week. His Majesty's Government are prepared to ratify the revised Convention simultaneously with the other six countries named in the text of the Convention.

Mr. HALL: Ought not the Government to take the initiative in this matter?

Mr. BROWN: The policy of the Government was clearly stated on the 23rd February, 1932, and remains the same now.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would ratification involve legislation?

Mr. BROWN: It would.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE TAXATION).

Mr. PARKINSON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether in the budget which has been presented in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament there is any reduction of native taxation corresponding to the reduction on income tax from 1s. to 6d. in the pound?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Lord Stanley): No provision for a reduction of the direct taxation of natives was included in the recent budget. I understand that, whereas income tax rates are fixed annually as circumstances require, the native hut tax has remained unaltered for a considerable time and that there would be a difficulty in reducing it unless there was some assurance that any reduction could be maintained.

Mr. PARKINSON: In view of the fact that the taxation of the natives is heavy, as compared with the relief given to the white population, will the Minister take steps to apply pressure that action may be taken within the period stated?

Lord STANLEY: I am sure that no pressure would be necessary, because all such considerations are always present in the mind of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.

Mr. PALING: 31 and 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he will publish the despatch which he sent to the High Commissioner of South Africa following upon General Hertzog's visit;
(2) whether the memorandum handed to General Smuts in July, 1933, with regard to the transfer of the Protectorates, will be published as a White Paper?

Lord STANLEY: My right hon. Friend does not consider it necessary to publish his letter to the High Commissioner, which was semi-official in character and does not contain anything material in addition to the information which he gave in the House on the 20th June. He is consulting General Hertzog as to the question of the publication of the memorandum of July, 1933.

Earl WINTERTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Dominions Secretary stated in reply to a question by myself that it would be published as a White Paper; and why is it necessary to consult General Hertzog?

Lord STANLEY: My right hon. Friend promised to publish the aide memoire of this year and not the letter to General Smuts in 1933.

Mr. PALING: Do I understand that it is the memorandum to General Smuts that is to be published and not the latest communication?

Lord STANLEY: It is the aide memoire which will be published as a White Paper in the course of the next few days. That is the document to which my right hon. Friend referred in his speech on the Dominions Office Vote.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Can the Under-Secretary indicate what is the nature of the co-operation between this Government and the Government of the Union of South Africa which was covered by the instructions to the High Commissioner?

Lord STANLEY: I think there is a question to that effect later on the Paper. If anything more explicit is desired, perhaps the hon Member will put it down.

Mr. PALING: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs for what reason the development of the protec-
torates, including the expenditure of the sums allocated to carrying out Sir Alan Pim's proposals in Bechuanaland and Basutoland, is to be submitted for approval to the Government of the Union?

Lord STANLEY: It was not contemplated that any proposed expenditure from United Kingdom funds for the purposes mentioned should be submitted to the Union Government for approval; but, for the reasons indicated in the aide memoire which my right hon. Friend gave to General Hertzog, His Majesty's Government are naturally anxious to proceed in co-operation with the Union Government.

Mr. PALING (for Mr. LUNN): 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether in the instructions sent to Sir William Clark immediately after General Hertzog's return to South Africa, he took into account the desirability of the High Commissioner consulting with the resident commissioners in the protectorates?

Lord STANLEY: Yes, Sir.

Mr. PALING (for Mr. LUNN): 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs at what date the description of the preamble of the South Africa Act of 1909 as a promise that the Protectorates should be transferred to the Union was accepted by the Union and by his Department, respectively; and if objections were made to the grant of self-government to Southern Rhodesia as one of the territories mentioned and to the constitution of Northern Rhodesia as a Protectorate under the Colonial Office?

Lord STANLEY: The position is that Section 151 of the South Africa Act has, as General Hertzog recently described it, a meaning and intention, but that the right of the Government here to transfer the Native Territories or not remains unimpaired by the provisions of the Act. This, indeed, was made clear in the course of the Debates on the Bill in 1909. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it clear from the answer that the description of this portion of the Act as a promise is not accurate unless it is accompanied by the conditions of that promise?

Lord STANLEY: The word "promise" is taken to mean an under-
standing that a transfer will take place sooner or later with the agreement of the natives and after this Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion.

Mr. PALING (for Mr. LUNN): 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's High Commissioner in South Africa consulted the Resident Commissioners in the Protectorates before the recent agreed statement with General Hertzog was made; whether they agreed to the proposal for closer co-operation between the Union and the Protectorates administration; and, if so, in which spheres of government do they think it possible to co-operate?

Lord STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as to the second part, the High Commissioner has been requested to confer with the Resident Commissioners on the whole question of co-operation, which is now under consideration locally.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (DOMINIONS).

Captain Sir IAN FRASER: 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has come to any conclusion with regard to the request made by the British Empire Service League, following on their biennial conference in Melbourne last November, that there should be a special review of the position of Imperial ex-service men in the Dominions?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir, a senior officer of the Ministry, who has recently been acting as my representative in Canada, will shortly visit Australia and New Zealand. He will get in touch with the war pensions authorities there, and will meet representatives of ex-service men's organisations. I may perhaps add that the initiative in this matter was taken by my predecessor and by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, North (Sir Ian Fraser).

Sir IAN FRASER: Will this facility be extended to South Africa in due course?

Mr. HUDSON: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Mr. GUY: Can the Minister say if his proposed action meets with the approval of the Governments of the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir. This step was taken with the cordial concurrence of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, and I should like to take the opportunity of again expressing appreciation of the constant help and co-operation which we have received from His Majesty's Governments in all parts of the Empire in our work for ex-service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (STAMP VENDING MACHINES, MANCHESTER).

Mr. CHORLTON: 36.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can arrange that more automatic stamp-machines are provided in the Platting Division in Manchester, as at the present time these are very limited in number?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (INSURANCE FUND).

Mr. THORNE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in consequence of the large surplus that has accumulated in the Insurance Fund, which is increasing week by week, the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have considered the advisability of increasing unemployment benefit to adult men and women, with proportionate increases to children, and the inclusion in the scheme of juveniles between the ages of 14 and 16 for benefit in their own right; and, if so, whether the Government have considered the proposals?

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee, as indicated in their report of February last, intend to make a special report upon the financial position of the Unemployment Fund at an early date. Upon receiving such a report, the Government will consider any proposals contained in it.

Mr. THORNE: When the report is ready, will it be circulated to Members of the House?

Mr. BROWN: I am not sure about that, but I shall give the point my consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (POLICE WARNINGS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information as to the effect of the warning sent by the police to a motorist, in respect of an alleged offence of a minor character, if the person warned is reported a second time?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for putting this question down, for it relates to an important matter of practice in which there should be no misunderstanding. In 1931 the Home Office circulated to all chief officers of police a form of warning which would not be open to the objection which had been taken to certain forms then in use. I have been examining the current forms, and I think the true position would be made still clearer if in future the warning (that a report had been made alleging that the individual to whom it is addressed had committed a motoring offence) went on as follows:
No further action will be taken in this case, but I am to inform you that, if you are reported again, it may be necessary to take proceedings against you in respect of the later case.
The earlier warning could, of course, in no circumstances be treated as a previous conviction, for no one must be assumed to have been guilty of any offence unless he has been duly convicted upon evidence in respect of it.

ROAD GRANTS, OUTER HEBRIDES.

Mr. T. RAMSAY: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give figures showing the contributions made by his Department during each of the last four financial years ended March, 1935, towards road schemes in the Outer Hebrides?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Grants were made in respect of seven schemes in the Outer Hebrides during
the last four financial years and the payments made were as follows:






£


1931–32
…
…
…
625


1932–33
…
…
…
269


1933–34
…
…
…
1,179


1934–35
…
…
…
1,518






£3,591


In addition grants have been made in respect of works of maintenance and minor improvements of roads in the counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty as a whole, but without detailed local inquiries, I am unable to state what portion of these grants relate to works in the Outer Hebrides.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. CHORLTON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any difficulty has been experienced during the recent Japanese troop movements in North China in securing the prompt despatch of goods from Tientsin and other northern ports into the interior?

The MINISTER for LEAGUE of NATIONS AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): My right hon. Friend has no information on this subject. If, however, any serious inconvenience of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend had been experienced by British interests, I have no doubt that it would have been brought to his attention.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can special inquiries be made into the questions which have been asked about this district?

Mr. EDEN: I will certainly consider that question, but I am confident that His Majesty's Ambassador would send us information if there was any need to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DOG AND MALE SERVANT LICENCES.

Sir JOHN POWER: 44 and 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1), the number of licences issues in respect of dogs, and the amounts received in respect of each of the financial years ended March, 1904, March, 1914, March, 1924, and March, 1934;
(2), the number of licences issued in respect of male servants, and the amounts received in respect of each of the financial years ended March, 1904, March, 1914, March, 1924, and March, 1934?

Mt. CHAMBERLAIN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Year ended 31st March.
Dog Licences.
Male Servant Licences.


Number.
Net Receipts.
Number.
Net Receipts.







£

£


1904
…
…
…
1,602,974
600,958
214,388
160,871


1914
…
…
…
1,978,440
741,902
248,277
186,197


1924
…
…
…
2,488,623
933,218
173,363
130,009


1934
…
…
…
2,902,253
1,088,331
172,900
129,659

TRANSFER DEEDS.

Sir J. POWER: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the Exchequer in issuing transfer deeds free to the public for the period 1st October, 1934, to 31st March, 1935; the cost to the Exchequer of the concession granted to Stock Exchange firms under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, and the amendment of 1931 for the same period; the extent to which each Stock Exchange has taken advantage of that privilege; and the aggregate totals since that Section operated?

—
Duty exigible under old law.
Exigible and paid under Section 42.
Difference.



£
£
£


London Stock Exchange
514,904
77,739
437,165


Birmingham Stock Exchange
368
95
273


Bristol Stock Exchange
1,239
344
895


Halifax Stock Exchange
54
8
46


Huddersfield Stock Exchange
33
5
28


Leeds Stock Exchange
362
79
283


Liverpool Stock Exchange
373
77
296


Manchester Stock Exchange
893
237
656


Mincing Lane Stock Exchange
95
84
11


Nottingham Stock Exchange
135
19
116


Sheffield Stock Exchange
7,049
1,841
5,208


Provincial Brokers Stock Exchange
3,925
448
3,477


(a) Total for period 1st October, 1934, to 31st March, 1935.
529,430
80,976
448,454


(b) Total from 1st September, 1920, to 31st March, 1935.
8,145,188: 5
1,544,551: 14
6,600,636: 11

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there would be any difficulty in giving people the opportunity of taking out a gun licence at any time they think proper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the questions on the Paper.

Following are the figures:

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The cost of the transfer forms issued free to the public in the period from 1st October, 1934, to 31st March, 1935, was approximately £480.

The following table shows (a) the effect over the same period of the operation of Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1931, and (b) the aggregate total from 1st September, 1920, when that Section came into operation, to 31st March, 1935.

TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.

Mr. MALLALIEU: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts for companies engaged in the business of sugar other than homegrown beet-sugar; the amount outstanding; and the extent to which the Consolidated Fund has been drawn upon in respect of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are £205,000 and £108,000 respectively. The Consolidated Fund has not been drawn upon.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the favoured recipients of these loans obtain their machinery and plant from precisely the same Glasgow firm which supplies the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation?

Mr. MALLALIEU: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts for companies engaged in selling taximeter-cabs to owner-drivers on the hire-purchase system; the amount outstanding; and the extent to which the Consolidated Fund has been drawn upon in respect of them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is £350,000. No sum is outstanding, nor has the Consolidated Fund been drawn upon.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Do not Lord Weir and Lord Invernairn hunt together rather too often when it is a question of spending public money?

OILS DUTY (DIESEL ENGINES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any estimate of the proportion of the loss of £1,300,000 in revenue occasioned by the development in the use of Diesel engines which is attributable to road transport and passenger vehicles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that information is not available to enable the sum in question to be divided as between the transport of goods and of passengers, which I take it is what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Captain STRICKLAND: Does not my question ask how much of this amount of
revenue was received from road transport and passengers, as against other users of the roads?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not quite understand the distinction which my hon. and gallant Friend draws between road transport and passengers.

Captain STRICKLAND: What I want to know is how much of this amount which has been lost to the revenue can be allocated to road use, as distinguished from industrial use?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I did not understand clearly what my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind. I thought he was seeking to draw a distinction between road transport and passengers.

Captain STRICKLAND: If I put down the question again, will my right hon. Friend be able to give me an answer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: indicated assent.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (FIRE-BRIDADES COMPETITIONS).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to treat organised fire-brigades competitions in the category of charities from the point of view of being exempt from entertainments duty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am afraid that I can find no ground for introducing any special privileges for fire brigades competitions.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Norfolk North (Mr. T. Cook) at considerable personal expense, for which he should receive the thanks of this House, recently organised the first international fire brigade exhibition in this country, and on that occasion, when the ambulance brigade gave a display—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make a speech on this question.

Mr. LIDDALL: It is the distinction between the ambulance brigade and the fire brigade in regard to the amusement tax.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a request for information.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).

Sir CECIL HANBURY (for Major MILLS): 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the consideration by the Council of the League of Nations of the question of the discharge of oil into the sea from ships?

Mr. EDEN: This question is at present being dealt with, on the instructions of the Council, by the Communications and Transit Organisation of the League of Nations in accordance with the procedure outlined in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) on 18th February.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during these long continued negotiations our coasts continue to be polluted with this oil and thousands of sea birds are daily dying of starvation owing to their feathers being clogged with this horrible stuff, so that they cannot get about and get their food?

Mr. EDEN: My hon. Friend may be sure that we shall do all we can to hasten matters, but it does not rest with us alone.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1933.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army, and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1934, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year."—[Captain Margesson.]

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Are we to have Scottish business on that day or not? That date was promised for Scottish business.

Mr. THORNE: Will a financial statement be circulated in connection with the matter?

Captain MARGESSON: Certainly. This does not interfere with the business for Thursday in the least, and it remains as announced.

Mr. MAXTON: If the House should desire to discuss this important matter, would it not interfere with the business fixed for Thursday?

Captain MARGESSON: This matter can be discussed when the particular business is put upon the Paper for discussion. This Motion merely resolves that the House shall go into Committee on this matter which can be discussed on the appropriate votes.

Mr. LANSBURY: That will not be on Thursday?

Captain MARGESSON: No, Sir.

Resolved,
That this House will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army, and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1934, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year.

Ordered,
That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, which were presented upon the 4th February last, and those for the Army and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 1st February last, be referred to the Committee."—[Captain Margesson.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 34.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Burnett, John George


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Butler, Richard Austen


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Blindell, James
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Apsley, Lord
Bowyer, Capt, Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Bracken, Brendan
Castlereagh, Viscount


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cayzer, Maj, Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Chapman, Col, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hard, Sir Percy
Rickards, George William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ross, Ronald D.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cook, Thomas A.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooke, Douglas
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sandys, Duncan


Davies, Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Savery, Servington


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lees-Jones, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leigh, Sir John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Donner, P. W.
Levy, Thomas
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Drewe, Cedric
Lewis, Oswald
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duckworth, George A. V.
Liddall, Walter S.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eales, John Frederick
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stevenson, James


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stones, James


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graves, Marjorie
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Train, John


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Norie-Miller, Francis
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
North, Edward T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hanbury, Sir Cecil
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Patrick, Colin M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Petherick, M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hornby, Frank
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herswald



Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Read, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Sir Charles
Maxton, James


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cleary, J. J.
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Dobbie, William
Maclean, Hall (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain Elliston, Mr. Gardner, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. North, and Mr. Tree; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Clarry, Mr. David Davies, Major
Herbert, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Alan Garrett Anderson, knight, for the City of London.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Glasgow Corporation Sewage Order Confirmation Bill,

Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the University of Durham and its constituent divisions and colleges." [University of Durham Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts 1899 and 1933 relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway." [London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Eastbourne." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Eastbourne) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Croydon." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Croydon) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban districts of Chigwell Chingford Waltham Holy Cross and Wanstead and
Woodford." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Metropolis Water) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Morley." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the county of Huntingdon." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Huntingdon) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Harrogate." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Harrogate) Bill [Lords.]

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (EASTBOURNE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CROYDON) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (METROPOLIS WATER) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HUNTINGDON) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HARROGATE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended [in the Standing Committee] considered.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Increase of permitted number of persons.)

Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, a dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be overcrowded if, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of this Act, rooms of exceptional size are occupied by more than the following number of persons, that is to say:
In the case of a room having a floor area of more than one hundred and thirty square feet two and a-half persons.—[Sir R. Horne.]

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the new Clause which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), I have had some doubts and still have some doubts whether I should select it. I think the right hon. Gentleman does not quite realise what would be the effect of his Amendment. I will, however, give him an opportunity of explaining it.

Clause brought up, and read the First time.

3.41 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause arises out of the special conditions of housing in Scotland, which are entirely different from those of England on which, unfortunately, too much of the legislation in this Bill has been based. Too little regard has been given to the conditions of the country with which the Bill is supposed to deal. The Schedule which deals with floor space shows that 20 square feet is supposed to be the accommodation for half a person, half a person being a child under the age of 10 years. There are gradations in the Schedule. Seventy square feet or more, but less than 90 square feet of accommodation is for one person. Ninety square feet or more, but less than 110 square feet is for the accommodation of one and a-half persons. One hundred and ten square feet or more is accommodation for two persons. The scale goes up
by one-half in respect of each additional 20 square feet of accommodation.
In England 110 square feet is a very ordinary room, certainly far more usual than is a room in a similar working-class house in Scotland, where the space is very much greater not merely in the number of square feet but more so in the number of cubic feet. We could not induce the authorities to take into account the fact that there is additional height in our walls. For that reason I am asking for some consideration in regard to the number of square feet without regard to the number of cubic feet that you would get if you had regard to the height of the room. A room of 110 square feet is a very ordinary room in England, but a very small room in Scotland. One hundred and thirty square feet is a very common room in Scotland, and that is the point to which I wish to draw attention. There are vast numbers of rooms in working-class houses in Scotland that contain more than 130 square feet, and it is having regard to that type of house that I am asking the Secretary of State to give fresh consideration to this particular matter.
It seems on the face of it and on the merits not too much to ask that a father, mother and child should be allowed to live in a room of 130 square feet or more. I have raised the 110 square feet standard up to 130 feet in my Clause and have added half a person in accordance with the graduated scale. To those who know the conditions of life among our working-classes I suggest that this is not asking for anything extraordinary or anything that would cause embarrassment if some such condition were arranged for. I want to look at this question from the practical point of view and to do something which can be brought into operation at an early period of time. If we are going to rely upon too high a standard, we shall delay for how many years no one can tell in bringing about better housing conditions for our people. Accordingly, I suggest that in the Scottish Bill 130 square feet should be recognised as the accommodation for 2½ people.
Mr. Speaker has been so good as to indicate that he sees some difficulty in regard to the results of this Clause, I imagine in connection with the other Clauses of the Bill. I am aware of the fact that it contravenes the
two scales that are already in the Bill in connection with the number of rooms, or the graduated scale of accommodation which those rooms afford, but the arrangement has to be taken on the basis that you have to apply the scale whichever is the lesser. As I dare say Mr. Speaker will observe, I begin the proposed new Clause with the phraseology:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, a dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be overcrowded if, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a)"—
etc. That means subject to provisions in regard to the segregation of the sexes, which would remain unaffected; you would still have that condition to apply no matter what the other conditions were. A room of 130 square feet should in Scotland be recognised as the appropriate accommodation for 2½ persons.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope the House will reject the proposed new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has given his point of view as to how the Clause will affect the difference in housing between England and Scotland. He says that in Scotland we have more spacious apartments than they have in England. I am not going to deny that statement in its entirety, but I want to put another point of view, and I hope the Secretary of State will pay attention to it. I would point out that the conditions of housing in Scotland are quite different from the housing conditions in England. In Scotland, we have great tenements, and in England they have nothing of the kind. That is all the difference in the world. In some of our closes in Glasgow we have as many as 130 souls, piled one on top of the other. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will not curtail or weaken the position of the Bill so far as floor space is concerned.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to say that you doubted whether the new Clause was in order and that you asked the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to make a short explanation. After the right hon. Gentleman had made his explanation, I presumed that you would have said whether the Clause was in order or not and whether the Debate should continue.

Mr. SPEAKER: What I said was that I did not think the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) realised the effect his new Clause would have. It is not my business to interpret to the House the meaning of any Amendment, but what I had in mind was that if the new Clause were adopted as it stands the effect would be that houses with rooms of more than 130 square feet might be occupied by any number of persons I thought that this should be pointed out.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that that arises from a clerical error; the word "not" has been missed out. The new Clause should read:
Rooms of exceptional size are occupied by not more than the following number of persons.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only take the Clause as it appears on the Order Paper.

Sir R. HORNE: May I say that I moved the new Clause with the "not" inserted. That is to say, the new Clause will read:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, a dwelling-house shall not be deemed to be overcrowded if, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of this Act, rooms of exceptional size are occupied by not more than the following number of persons, that is to say:
In the case of a room having a floor area of more than one hundred and thirty square feet two and a-half persons.
It is a clerical error for which apologise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Now that we are in order may I say that the new Clause is reducing the thing down to a very fine edge? This is a Bill to do away with overcrowding conditions in Scotland, which are unequalled in any part of the world. They are a standing disgrace, and the Bill does something to remedy the terrible state of affairs. But along comes the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and boils the thing down to two and a half persons. What a generous action. When we are dealing with a Bill which will do something to do away with the most terrible housing conditions in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman introduces a new Clause which will hamper its operation and make the Bill worse instead of better. The right hon. Gentleman says that his new Clause is a practical
suggestion, meaning, I suppose, that the Bill is impracticable. I hope the Secretary of State will resist it.

3.55 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The suggestion in the new Clause is that in a room of 130 square feet, that is 13 feet by 10 feet, the permitted number of persons should be increased to two and a half persons. A room of this size is exactly the width of the space between the two sides of the House and from the end of the Table to the Clerk's table in length. It would seem a startling proposition that we should lay down a room of this size as sufficient for the permanent living place for two grown-ups and one child. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress on the difference in the size of rooms in Scotland and in England. There is something in that, but, on the other hand, it must be remembered that the number of rooms in Scotland is smaller and that overcrowding is at its peak in two-roomed houses. If this alteration is made in the standard, hon. Members must realise how it will effect people who are living in two-roomed houses. That is the main question to consider. If the alteration were made in two-roomed houses, each of the rooms being 13 feet by 10 feet, it would be possible for a widow and eight children to occupy the rooms. You could have that degree of overcrowding. But it is not only the actual number of human beings you get in a room of that size but the material difficulties, which are very great indeed. When you get two adults and one child up to the age of 10 years accommodated in rooms of this size you get problems of space, which are difficult indeed. The Government are most unwilling and indeed determined not to alter or diminish the standard of housing laid down in the Bill. The vital matter in Scotland is the two-roomed house, and if you permit this extension—there may be more arguments in excuse in a three or four-roomed house—you must be careful, when you are dealing with the two-roomed house, that your standards are not such as to allow too great a number of people to be living in these two rooms.

Sir R. HORNE: Does the Under-Secretary realise that under his scale in a two-roomed house of 110 square feet you
can equally have a widow and six children, if they are all of the same sex?

Mr. SKELTON: That is no reason for making this alteration. That bears out the view which was frankly expressed in Committee, that you cannot expect to get an ideal standard, and the fact that even this standard is open to criticism seems to be a reason why—the Committee having determined upon the standard—there should be no alteration.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. BURNETT: I hope the Secretary of State will take into consideration the principles embodied in the new Clause. I admit all that has been said about the overcrowded conditions in Scotland and I do not minimise them, but it will be a long time before we have sufficient accommodation to enable us to say that we can get rid of overcrowding, and until we have sufficient accommodation we must consider how best we can spread the people over the accommodation that we have. This amounts to something like a puzzle. We have to fit so many pieces into a particular square, and if we fit a certain number of pieces in, leaving considerable spaces, we find when we get to the other end that we cannot get all our pieces in. To illustrate that, I may say we have a large number of people at present in my constituency who are living in tents and vans, simply because there is no accommodation which they can get. I think that is a very strong reason why we should use the accommodation which we have got to the utmost. The majority of tenements in my constituency which have been built within the last 30 or 40 years are good, solid, granite buildings with good height. The three-roomed tenements have rooms with about 180, 150 and 110 square feet of floor space on the average, while the two-roomed tenements have something like 180 and 110 square feet. If we take the scale laid down, it means that these rooms which have 180 square feet of floor space are not fully used, and we are taking very much longer time before we can deal with the gross overcrowding which exists.
I may take an instance, which I came across three days ago, of a family—a husband and wife and eight children—living in three very small rooms. The two larger rooms were 8 feet by 10, and the smaller room had the whole floor
practically covered by bedding. This family could have been moved some time ago into a three-roomed house where there would be accommodation of the nature I have mentioned. In that case, the five girls in the family, aged 14, 12, 8, 7 years and six months, would have to be put in a room where there were 180 square feet of floor space, instead of a room 10 feet by 8; but, owing to the regulations, they cannot be put into a three-roomed house, and there are no four-roomed houses available. [An HON. MEMBER: "What regulations?"] The existing regulations as to 400 cubic feet. My point is that, if we lay down too many regulations, we are hampering the local authority considerably in dealing with these worst cases. We have to calculate the thing by figures—the numbers of people, the numbers of houses, the amount of actual floor space. But the local authority is dealing with actual flesh and blood. It is these gross cases of overcrowding with which it has to deal, and whenever we can move a bad case of 10 people or so crammed in small rooms into better circumstances, I think we are making a mistake in hampering a local authority in doing this. I favour the principle of the Clause, because I consider that it will enable us to spread our people better over the existing accommodation, and I look forward to the time when we shall have enough accommodation to be able then to take up the standard which we desire to have. I most certainly want this Bill to be quickly placed on the Statute Book so that we can deal with overcrowding, but if we make rules too strict, I do not think that we are hastening the day when that can be done.

4.5 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I must remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that when he was opposing the Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), he seemed to overlook two things in the Bill. In the first place, he did not make it clear to the House that the number of persons to be allowed to sleep in each room advances by half a unit for every additional 20 square feet, beginning by allowing half a unit, that is, a child below the age of 10, for 50 square feet. Therefore, what my right hon. Friend suggested is entirely in line with Table II of Schedule 1 which allows two full persons, or four half
units, for a room of 110 square feet. His clause is in line with the basis of that table, that for an additional 20 square feet an additional half unit should be allowed. I think that is a very important point to keep in mind.
The other point in regard to the Bill which my hon. Friend overlooked is, that although Table II of Schedule 1 allows an additional half unit for every additional 20 square feet between 50 and 110 square feet, reaching a maximum of two full units, there is another table in Schedule 1 which for a two-roomed house allows only three persons. My right hon. Friend's suggestion thus would not mean more than two and a-half persons in one room and one person in the other room, and therefore only an additional half unit. Under Table II the number of persons allowed in a two-roomed house could not be stretched to the dimensions suggested by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Therefore, what this House has before it is simply a half unit added to the number of persons, which is in line with the Government's own proposal of allowing an additional half person for every additional 20 square feet, and there is no proposal under the new Clause to upset the conditions in Table 1, by which, if you have two persons in one room you can only have one person in the other room of the two-roomed house. Therefore, the case of a widow with eight children in a two-roomed house has no relevance to the facts, and even if two and a-half units were allowed, it would work out to a woman with seven children, and not eight. I beg to support the Clause.

Captain McEWEN: Is it not a fact that, according to the Rules of Procedure, a new Clause may not be moved without notice, and, therefore, as notice has not been given of this Clause correctly, is not this Debate on the Clause entirely out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: A new Clause cannot be moved without notice being given, but I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that his intention was that the word "not" should be included in this new Clause, and that it was an error that it was omitted. If that be the case, I should naturally assume that it was intended to give notice of the Clause in that form.

Sir R. HORNE: It was perfectly obvious that the Clause could not mean anything else to any intelligent reader.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was asked just now whether it would not be possible under the Bill for a widow and six children to inhabit a two-roomed house, he appeared to agree that this was so, but I do not think it is. Under the first Schedule, the greatest possible number would be a widow and four children under 10.

Mr. SKELTON indicated assent.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: That is only half the number of children which might be possible under the new Clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne).
The argument put forward in support of the new Clause is, that if you relax the standard of overcrowding, you will thereby enable the worst overcrowding conditions to be relieved more rapidly than would be the case under the existing provisions of the Bill. The House, of course, will have observed that the Secretary of State has put down an Amendment to the Clause which reads:
Any proposals under this Section for the provision of additional housing accommodation shall be accompanied by a statement of the steps which the local authority propose to take to secure that the rehousing of families living under the worst conditions as regards overcrowding is provided for first.
It is, therefore, evident that it is the intention of this Bill, on which the Government mean to insist, that the worst cases shall be dealt with first, and the only point we have to consider is whether a Clause of the sort now proposed would make it more difficult to carry out the Amendment which is to be inserted at the end of Clause 1. I think, perhaps, hon. Members have confused the business of relieving overcrowding which can begin now, with the fixing of the appointed day under the Act. There is nothing whatever to prevent the process of de-crowding from beginning now. The financial provisions of the Bill apply retrospectively to all houses begun after 1st February of this year. There is no need for a local authority to wait for the appointed day in order to start building new houses, and moving families not only into the new houses, but perhaps
out of one house into another old house, which will accommodate them better. The object of the overcrowding standard proposed is to provide the local authorities with some measure which will enable them to know how many houses to start building. The local authority has a survey of its area and finds out how many houses will be required to relieve overcrowding under the standard laid down. Having decided that, it can start to build them, but the business of moving the families will not begin until some houses are built, and the appointed day will not be until a sufficient number of houses is built to relieve all the overcrowding in the area.
Therefore, the higher standard we set now, the more houses you make local authorities provide for, and the quicker will be the process of relieving the worst cases in accordance with the proposed Amendment of the Secretary of State. I see no difficulty such as that envisaged by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) of moving the family which he instanced into a new house, or rather into an old house other than that which they occupied before, while the process of decrowding is going on in the initial stages of the working of this Bill.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has not, I think, covered the whole purpose of the supporters of the new Clause. I think the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), the Noble Lady, and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) may be given credit for understanding the Bill. They know perfectly well that there is no provision in the Bill which immediately establishes the standards laid down. We know there is any amount of time given for their adjustment—centuries in fact, if the Bill is interpreted in a liberal spirit.

Mr. BURNETT: I know that at the present time families such as I have referred to cannot be put into council houses. They cannot be put into three-romed houses, because there are too many families.

Mr. MAXTON: No; the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. There may be some local rule of the Aberdeen Town Council by which they are going to allow people into certain houses owned by themselves, but there is nothing that prevents an adjustment, so far as Statute
law is concerned, nothing that prevents a change being made at Aberdeen.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Several local authorities have adopted what, I think, are model by-laws, suggested, I believe, by the Department of Health in a circular on the 1930 Act, that when clearing slum areas the standard for the new houses should be three units per two-roomed house. A standard has thus been set up in a piecemeal way, which is unfortunate, I think.

Mr. MAXTON: That may be so, but as legislation stands now, and as it will stand after this Bill becomes law, there is nothing to prevent local authorities moving families about from house to house in the way that seems to them best suited to the needs of the community, and I am prepared to believe that the Housing Committee of the Aberdeen Town Council are as capable of making a wise decision on these matters as is the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett). After the appointed day, after time has been given for the building of new houses and the reconstruction of old houses, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) wants it to be laid down permanently that Scottish people can live satisfactorily and healthily in a single apartment house—two adults and a child—and the space for which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are arguing is a space somewhat less than the floor space from the Bar to where I am standing. They are arguing that a family, a man and wife and child, shall live their complete lives, shall perform every function of life, shall be born and die, inside that space. That is what they are standing for here.

Mr. BURNETT: Until the appointed day.

Mr. MAXTON: No, after the appointed day.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Up to the Judgment Day.

Mr. MAXTON: That is the view of right hon. and hon. Members of what is good enough for their fellow-countrymen. It is not good enough in England and not good enough in Wales or anywhere else, but it is good enough for their fellow-countrymen, for their constituents, for the people who sent them here. It is necessary to explain to English Members of this House that when supporters
of this new Clause talk about a single room they mean a room that is all-inclusive. There is no kitchenette, no scullery, no bathroom, no water closet. It is one room that has to be bathroom, drawing room, sitting room, bedroom, kitchen and everything else.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member is talking about one room and connecting it with the supporters of this new Clause. We are only proposing to add half a unit to the number of persons set out in the Bill, and we have said nothing about one-roomed houses.

Sir R. HORNE: I have listened to that the hon. Member has said, and completely misrepresents my point view.

Mr. MAXTON: I may be misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I am not misrepresenting either the new Clause on the Paper or the speeches made in support of it. The Government, I admit, allow for the retention of the one-roomed house and the Bill allows two people to live in it. That is held to be an ideal standard. It is a miserable standard. A higher standard could have been inserted and should have been inserted in the Bill. But it has been accepted by the Standing Committee after long argument. What is being done now by the right hon. Member for Hillhead and his friends is not merely to defend a continuation of that single-roomed house, but to persuade this House to pack an extra human being into it. That is what they want. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen who represents a great fishing port, talked about it as if it were a problem of packing herring into barrels. The Noble Lady resents that statement.

Mr. BURNETT: The hon. Gentleman entirely misrepresents my position. I said that these grossly overcrowded places, such as I mentioned, need attention as well as the cases where a person has to live in a one-roomed house. I asked simply for equality of treatment.

Mr. MAXTON: Then I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not regard the packing of three human beings into one room of that size as undesirable? It is the whole house; it is everything. It is not merely the whole house, but the whole garden and the rest of it. If the tenants want to grow a geranium it has to be grown inside that space. Right hon. and
hon. Members come forward and ask me to agree to packing another individual into that space. They may go into all sorts of side issues, but what they are asking here is that the House shall agree to packing another human being into a one-roomed house, and that not merely for a transition period but as the accepted standard for Scotland. I am not having it, and I am glad that the Government have definitely resisted the proposal.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. TRAIN: I am deeply interested in what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said with regard to the one-roomed house and the new Clause that has been moved. I support the new Clause not so much because it asks that another half person be put into the room, but because it makes the room 20 square feet larger than that in the Bill. What are the Government asking in the Bill? Two people to 110 square feet. The new Clause suggests 2½ people to 130 square feet. I would support it more readily if it suggested 150 square feet. I would not suggest that the housing conditions in Scotland are good. They are bad, and very bad, and I agree with all that has been said about them. From one-third to one-half of the working-class people of Scotland are living in overcrowded conditions. If this Bill in its entirety goes through we are told that 70,000 houses in Glasgow will not meet the requirements of the Bill regarding overcrowding.
We have been accustomed in Scotland to larger rooms than those in England. I agree with the statement that what is good enough for England is good enough for Scotland, but it is necessary to compare like with like. Rooms of houses in England have never been as large as those to which we have been accustomed in Scotland. I have here a note given to me regarding some houses in Paisley. They are two-roomed houses, and they were measured by a reputable firm of surveyors. The note gives the sizes of the rooms in square feet in the case of 564 houses. The total for a two-roomed house is 415 square feet. That is over 200 feet for each room, and that is what the people of Scotland have been accustomed to.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Nonsense.

Mr. TRAIN: I am giving the figures supplied by a reputable firm and will pass them on to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to see them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Those houses are an exception.

Mr. TRAIN: I am quoting a statement which shows that there were 415 square feet in the two rooms as measured by the surveyors in Paisley, and the measurements were made in 564 houses. That is typical of housing in Scotland generally.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You know that is not true.

Mr. TRAIN: Scottish people are accustomed to these larger rooms. If for no other reason I would support this new Clause because it increases the sizes of the rooms provided in the Bill. An area of 110 square feet is very small. We have had an illustration of an area of 130 square feet, but imagine what 110 square feet is. When you open the door you are up against a bed or a fireplace, and there is no room for furniture at all. I am all for making the rooms larger. If we get another 20 or 30 square feet into a room I am all for the proposal. I hope the Government will give the new Clause every consideration. It is all very well to say that the appointed day has not yet come. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, it might not come for a long time. That is what a lot of us are afraid of. We want this Bill to go through in a way that is practical, but if the Government insist on these very rigid conditions and lay down regulations that so many houses must be provided before beginning to deal with the subject, delay is inevitable. It is all very well to say "the worse cases first," but the present condition of housing in Scotland is bad and progress is not what we wish. Laying down hard-and-fast regulations and taking the people away from the kind of houses to which they are accustomed, are not going to help housing improvements in Scotland.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) wishes to increase the size of the room in which two persons are to live. If that be his desire, he ought to produce an Amendment to make the 110 square feet, which appears in the Schedule, into 130
or 140 square feet, leaving unaltered the provision as to two persons. What the hon. Member really desires is to increase the size of the room but also to increase the number of persons in it. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) put an interesting argument. She said we have advanced by a process of arithmetical progression, by 20 feet and 20 feet and 20 feet, until we have reached 110 feet, and there we have two persons. She asked, why cannot we add 20 feet and provide for 2½ persons? I cannot believe that the Noble Lady appreciates the logical conclusion of that argument. Why stop at 2½ persons for 130 feet? The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke of rooms 200 square feet in size. If you adopt this arithmetical progression, you will have four persons in a room of that size. Does anyone desire to cram as many people as that into one room?
The Schedule says that in no circumstances can more than two persons be accommodated in one room. My right hon. Friend is suggesting in his new Clause that more people should go into one room. I am very sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend, because I agree most profoundly with him in his views on the position of occupying owners and compensation to people disturbed and on the assistance that ought to be given to owners to improve their property without unnecessary rigmarole. I agree with him profoundly on those subjects, and I admired the stand that he took up in the Standing Committee on these matters. I beg my right hon. Friend not to pursue a proposal which is designed to lower the standard of housing.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett) appreciates as I do that we may not be able to apply this standard at once but that is no reason why we should reduce the standard. When a standard is applied, for example, to a business, all those engaged in that business do not always come up to that standard but that is no reason why the general standard should be reduced. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend expects the employés of any company over which he presides to keep proper hours and to work diligently throughout the day. That is his standard. But he knows that some of them may not arrive punctually at nine o'clock each morning—that some may dribble in five
minutes or 10 minutes late and that some may not always work diligently throughout the day. He does not, however, lower the standard on that account. He maintains the standard and strives to make its application general. I know that his desire for better housing is as keen as that of any Member in the House, but I submit that, whatever may be the arguments in favour of his Amendment, it would have the direct result of increasing rather than diminishing overcrowding and I ask him therefore not to press it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I am pleased that certain hon. Members representing English constituencies who were sitting in my vicinity have now departed because some of the statements made earlier in this Debate surprised them and their comments caused me a certain amount of embarrassment. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State is not going to accept this Amendment and I trust that he will not be diverted from that view. The question before us is whether we desire that the standard should be lowered or not. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment represents a division of Glasgow but he is not voicing the opinion of the people of Glasgow in putting forward this Amendment. The Amendment is more suggestive of the views of some of the county councils on this matter. I recollect the efforts that were made in Committee to conform to the desires of those county councils and I have still in my possession a copy of a document from the Association of County Councils in Scotland in which they state that they take the view that the standard of overcrowding laid down in the Bill is too high as compared with the English standard. They also state that the Scottish authorities have a greater problem of overcrowding to face and that some lower standard might be laid down for Scotland.
I definitely disagree with that view. There is no reason why we in Scotland should not aim at the standard which has been accepted as suitable for England. An hon. Member has suggested that this scheme is like a puzzle and that it will take time to fit in all the different parts but it has also been said that there is ample time and that there will be a sufficient number of "appointed days" in order to get all the parts of the puzzle
into their proper places. I feel that much of what has been said in support of this Amendment has a greater approximation to the kind of opinion which resides in county councils than to opinion in the urban areas. The problem of the county councils in the matter of houses for overcrowding is not so great as the problem of the city, and I think it is a true reflex of the opinion in the cities to say that they are prepared to pay for the higher standard even if it takes a little more time, and that, especially in view of the modifications already made in Committee, there is no reason to depart from the standard fixed in the Bill.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I want to see everything done as quickly as possible, but there is one consideration in connection with this matter which ought not to be overlooked. I do not think that the average sensible person in Scotland would suggest that it is necessary or desirable, if a young couple get married and if in the ordinary course of nature one member is added to the family, that they should immediately have to hunt round the town in order to get another house. That is not a sensible or a reasonable proposition. I think the proposal in the Amendment is reasonable and fair, and is in consonance with public opinion.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Publication of Report of Commissioners.)

Where under the Act of 1925, the Act of 1930 or this Act, the Department are required to cause a public local enquiry to be held, any objector who has appeared at any such enquiry shall be furnished by the Department with a copy of the report made by the person appointed to hold the enquiry.—[Sir R. Horne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.36 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It will be recollected that under the redevelopment Clauses of the Bill it is provided that a scheme may be drawn up and published and thereafter objection may be taken to it. If such objection be taken it is within the power of the Department to order a public inquiry, and the person who holds the inquiry reports to the Department. No provision
is made as to what is then to happen. This report passes into the hands of the Department and the Department forms its own judgment. Personally, I should like to see an appeal from the decision of the Department. I am not over-impressed by the judgments formed by the bureaucrats in Government Departments. They live too much outside the light of day to be entirely trusted in these matters. I am not saying that in any censorious sense. I only suggest that they are inclined to become too autocratic and to form their own judgments without sufficient regard to other matters.
It may well be that in this case the Department will form a judgment contrary to that of the commissioner who reports to them. If that be so, the parties concerned ought to know about it. While I am not now urging that there should be an appeal to some independent authority against the judgment of the Department, I submit that there ought to be at least this check upon the Department's action, that what they have decided ought to become known to the objectors and not only what they have decided but why they have decided it. In cases where their decision is contrary to the opinion of the commissioner the objector is entitled to know that fact. The purpose of the new Clause is obvious and I cannot imagine any reasonable objection to it.

4.38 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): In moving this new Clause, my right hon. Friend has indicated that he would also desire an appeal from the decision on this inquiry, and he made certain references to the Department making the decision. It is true that the word "Department" appears in the Bill, but the responsible authority in this matter is not the Department but the Minister who is responsible to this House. He will have to give the decision and to stand criticism in this House on any judgment he may give. Let me also remind my right hon. Friend of the past history of this matter. He will recollect that in Committee we were pressed to appoint independent commissioners. We agreed and we took away the powers enabling the Department to appointment the commissioners and we provided in Clause 77 that the persons holding these inquiries should be selected not by the Department only but by the
Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Scottish branch of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution in consultation with the Department.
I think that shows a readiness on the part of the Government to meet what I know is a very deep feeling in the minds of certain interested parties that their interests in this matter might not have been amply safeguarded if an official or someone solely appointed by the Department had been entrusted with these inquiries. But if the reports of these independent commissioners appointed by these three responsible authorities in Scotland are to be published I can visualise that a commissioner will give the barest outline in his report of what he saw and what evidence he heard. He would do that to avoid criticism. On the other hand, I realise that a subject of the realm is entitled to have reasons given to him for a decision of these commissioners affecting him, and I propose that in another place an Amendment should be introduced to the effect that it will be an obligation on the Minister to state the reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation. I know that that does not go the whole way desired my my right hon. Friend, but it shows a real desire on the part of the Government that the decision of the Minister in each one of these cases should be stated in writing, with the reasons for deciding that a particular building is unfit. I am unable to accept the new Clause, but I undertake that in another place words will be proposed to carry out the spirit of the proposition which I have just indicated. Perhaps, on that assurance, my right hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the new Clause.

Sir R. HORNE: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister should give not merely the reason for finding that certain buildings are unfit, but also the reason why, under a redevelopment scheme, certain houses which are perfectly fit are taken? Obviously, that will form a ground of offence to persons who own such property. If such person is left without any reason At all why his property has been taken, he will feel a sense of injustice, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will stretch his clemency a little further to meet such cases.

Sir G. COLLINS: It is not unusual when one offers a concession that one should be pressed immediately, on the spur of the moment, to extend it. Throughout this controversy—at any rate on this part of the Bill—I think I have shown a readiness to meet the case put forward by those whom the right hon. Gentleman represents, but I am afraid I cannot give the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman desires. I would have to see the full effect of it first. I will look into the matter further, but I cannot undertake here and now to go beyond what I have already indicated.

Sir R. HORNE: If my right hon. Friend assures me that he will look into the matter with a mind not entirely shut to the possibility of extending his concession, I will gladly withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member speaks the Motion cannot be withdrawn.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I only intervene to say that I hope the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to the point put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). This is not merely a question of representing property owners. The Secretary of State referred to the interests represented by my right hon. Friend—

Sir R. HORNE: I hope the House will not take it that I am here representing the property-owners. I am here as a Member of Parliament like other Members of Parliament. I am not here on behalf of the property-owners, but on behalf of all the interests and all the considerations which any hon. Member must take into account. I have been sent to this House as the representative of a constituency.

Sir G. COLLINS: I wish to point out, too, that I referred distinctly to subjects of the realm, and not to any special class.

Mr. FOOT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I was not making any case against him, or his position in the House, or anything he has said on the Bill. That implication seemed to be contained in a sentence used by the Secretary of State, and I am sorry if I misunderstood his
meaning. The concession that has been promised does not meet the point that was raised. It is true that the aggrieved person, if this concession is carried out, will have a statement of the reason why the Department acts, but he will not know whether the action of the Department is in accordance with the report that has been made by the inspector or whoever holds the inquiry. The decision which is reached by the Department, although it may be on grounds that seem good to them, may be entirely against the weight of evidence and against the general sense of the report which has been made by the person holding the inquiry. I would like to refer the House to a passage in the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. The committee considered the publication of reports at considerable length, and they gave the argument for and against. This is their general conclusion:
To these various arguments for and against publication we have given prolonged consideration, and, on balance, have come to the conclusion that publication is right. By that we do not mean that the expense of printing a long report should in every case be incurred, but that in all cases the report of the inspector should be made available to the parties concerned and to the Press, and, in important cases, should be officially published by the Department responsible for the inquiry.
I put a question some months ago to the then Prime Minister, and he assured me that, while the Government could not find time to carry out all the recommendations of the Committee on Minister's Powers, they were bearing these recommendations in mind and giving effect to them from time to time. On the occasion of this Bill, just as on the occasion of the English Housing Bill, they entirely ignore the recommendations of that committee. It only shows that this Government, like many other Governments that have gone before, is less concerned for the rights of the subject than it is for the convenience of bureaucracy at Whitehall.

Duchess of ATHOLL: A similar type of inquiry is held in regard to the marketing of food, and I have found great anxiety and dissatisfaction among agricultural producers because neither the reports of those inquiries nor the evidence are made public. I think, therefore, that the more publicity there is in this matter the better.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: It has been the subject of comment in this country since the War that the bureaucratic powers given to the Departments of State are being increasingly bestowed by Parliament without sufficient safeguards. Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way it is in the public interest, that a Department when it gives a decision following upon an inquiry by an indedendent arbiter, should do so without disclosing the report of the arbiter? The Department gives its decision without disclosing any reasons why it has decided affirmatively or negatively. When interests are involved—matrimonial interests, interests of title and any kind of interest—and when the lieges have gone forward to an inquiry with a case to state—it may be a bad case or a good case; it does not matter what type of case it is—surely it is one of the essential principles of justice and equity in our country that the person placed in the position of a tribunal to give a decision upon an issue should give the reasons for his decision. It is a commonplace in our law courts that when litigation takes place and a decision is given, the disappointed litigant knows at least what reason the judges had for deciding against the submissions put forward. Why should we in this House allow a Department in a matter like this to give a decision without giving the reasons? It may be a small thing, but surely a fundamental principle is involved. I wish to protest most strongly against this procedure, and before we part from this proposed Clause, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House and the country why it is against the public interest, when a Department of State gives a decision in a matter like this, for it to give any reason for reaching that decision.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There was one remark of the Secretary of State which was very disturbing. He said that if the report had to be published the reporter would say practically nothing. What kind of reporter is he going to have to make these inquiries? The sooner we make these gentlemen state their reasons the better. To adopt Star Chamber methods of this kind is contrary to all the things for which we have struggled. We ought
really to have the reasons why the Department comes to its decisions, and I hope that this question will be put to the vote.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that in the main a case has been made out for the report being issued. I notice, however, that hon. Members opposite show great indignation on this question, but, if indignation is shown by other sections of the House when the rights of the unemployed are concerned, the machine mows them down in the Division Lobby. I do not know that it matters a great deal whether we agree or not to the concession made by the Secretary of State, for when it comes to a question of a vote of confidence in a Minister the machine always operates in his favour. Whatever the reasons may be for or against such a vote, the machine is with the Secretary of

State and nothing else matters. That is the weakness of the contention that the Minister is always responsible to Parliament. I have no objection to the publication of the report, for I often think that the publication of these things should be made much wider. The only thing I feel is that when other questions are concerned and when the regulations dealing with vast numbers of unemployed are put through the House without the House being able to amend them, the position becomes farcical. For that reason, I do not feel the same indignation on this matter as other Members opposite, but I support the principle that they raised.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 187.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Adams Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Paling, Wilfred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Parkinson, John Allen


Alexander, Sir William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Rea, Sir Walter


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnese)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hartington, Marquess of
Stevenson, James


Buchanan, George
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Thorne, William James


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Train, John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kirkwood, David
West, F. R.


Cleary, J. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wilmot, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
McGovern, John
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander



Dickie, John P.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dobbie, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sir Robert Hamilton and Mr.


Eales, John Frederick
Maxton, James
Dingle Foot.


Edwards, Sir Charles
Moreing, Adrian C.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Copeland, Ida


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burnett, John George
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Richard Austen
Cranborne, Viscount


Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Carver, Major William H.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Donner, P. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarke, Frank
Duckworth, George A. V.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Dunglass, Lord


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eady, George H.


Blindell, James
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Conant, R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Bracken, Brendan
Cook, Thomas A.
Elmley, Viscount


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cooke, Douglas
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cooper, A. Duff
Fermoy, Lord


Fox, Sir Gifford
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandys, Duncan


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Savery, Servington


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hales, Harold K.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Milne, Charles
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stones, James


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hornby, Frank
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Summersby, Charles H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Norie-Miller, Francis
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Iveagh, Countess of
Patrick, Colin M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Peat, Charles U.
Thomson, Sir James D. W.


Jamleson, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Penny, Sir George
Tree, Ronald


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Petherick, M.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Law, Sir Alfred
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Leckle, J. A.
Radford, E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Levy, Thomas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Liddall, Walter S.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Liewellin, Major John J.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rickards, George William
Wise, Alfred R.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Womersley, Sir Walter


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward



Mabane, William
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)
Ward and Mr. Stuart.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding.)

5.5 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from the first "as," to "after," in line 12, and to insert "the Department may."
This Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 2, line 1, after "authority," to insert "fix as respects their district"—are drafting Amendments. I will, if I may, read the first portion of the Clause as it will stand when thus amended:
It shall be the duty of every local authority, before such dates as the department may, after consultation with the authority, fix as respects their district …

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 2, line 1, after "authority," insert "fix as respects their district."—[Mr. Skelton.]

5.6 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after "showing," to insert:
in such detail as the Department may direct.
It will be within the recollection of Members of the Scottish Grand Committee that during the progress of the Bill hon. Members in all parts of the Committee asked that these instructions should be drawn up on uniform lines, and that the Bill should contain some form of words which would secure that object. I gave an undertaking that such words should be inserted. The reports should include the following information: The number of empty houses in the district; the number of overcrowded houses; the extent of sub-letting; how far overcrowding can be relieved by a better distribution of population; how many new houses are estimated to be required; the sizes of the new houses. Information such as this will be asked for by the
Department. When we met the representatives of the local authorities in Edinburgh a fortnight ago, this question arose, and we invited that body to appoint some of their members to assist the officials of the Department of Health, so that a form might be drawn up which would be advantageous to the local authorities and would secure the information that will be necessary for the purposes of the Act.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Was the meeting that the right hon. Gentleman had with the local authorities of Scotland a fortnight ago in pursuance of the pledge that he gave during the Committee stage?

Sir G. COLLINS: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman promised that there should be a meeting with the 29 authorities in order to consider certain matters to which they took some exception. Can he give us some information about that meeting?

Sir G. COLLINS: The point on which I undertook, during the latter stages of the Bill, to confer with the local authorities in Scotland, did come up at the meeting to which I have just referred, but that question will arise at a Later stage of the Bill. It was mentioned during the course of the discussion to which I have just referred, which was a long one, but I thought it might be of interest if I mentioned now that the local authorities are with us in this matter, and we are seeking their advice and assistance in the preparation of this form.

Mr. MACLEAN: As regards the conference between the Secretary of State and these bodies with regard to the matter that arose during the latter part of the Committee stage, may I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House later as to what transpired, and as to any agreement that may have been reached?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any proposals under this section for the provision of additional housing accommodation shall be accompanied by a statement of the steps which the local authority propose to take to secure that the rehousing of families living under the worst conditions as regards overcrowding is provided for first.
This Amendment, also, gives effect to a pledge made during the Committee stage of the Bill, that words should be inserted to secure that the worst cases should be taken first. As the House will see, the method adopted is that, when proposals to deal with overcrowding are submitted by the local authorities to the Department, those proposals shall be accompanied by a statement of the steps that the local authorities propose to take to secure that the worst cases shall be dealt with first.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think there ought to be some definition of what the worst conditions are. I understood that what is proposed in the Amendment is what is done by the local authorities now, that is to say, that the worst houses, in which people are living under the worst conditions, are cleared first. Is this an attempt to lay down a uniform basis on which the local authorities shall act, and what is to be the test? Is it to be, for instance, the number of children, which seems to be the case in some instances now? Sometimes, however, there are other conditions which are more serious than the number of children. Sometimes there is disease, such as tuberculosis, which has already been mentioned in this connection. You cannot run a straight line along and say that such-and-such conditions are the worst; there are many factors which enter into the question. I would rather that the local authorities, with all their faults, shortcomings and failures, were left a free hand in these matters, because they know each case, and very often it must come down to a consideration of individual cases.

5.12 p.m.

Sir ROBERT SMITH: With regard to the question of tied houses on farms, I understood, from everything that was said by the Government in Committee upstairs, that tied houses on a farm would be dealt with very leniently and with a good deal of latitude, and that the local authorities would use discretion, because the question is a very difficult one. It seems to me, however, that, under the
Amendment now proposed by the Government, the local authority would have no option if the tied house happened to be the house in the worst condition as regards overcrowding. If the survey of the district should show that the tied houses are the worst as regards overcrowding, the local authority, under this proposal, would be compelled at once to deal with them. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill to show how the question of the tied house is to be dealt with, and I should be grateful for some information on that point.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may reply to the questions which have been put to me. I think the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has not read the Amendment with his usual thoroughness. The words are not merely "the worst conditions," but "the worst conditions as regards overcrowding." The hon. Member will recollect that the Bill deals with overcrowding, and it was strongly impressed upon us in Committee that, when the local authorities were putting forward a comprehensive plan or programme to deal with the overcrowding discovered by the survey, they should show that they proposed to carry out that programme in such a way that the most severe or the worst conditions as regards overcrowding would be dealt with first.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is the question of disease, certain forms of which, while they might not be certifiable, would be shocking when people were crowded together. Moreover, with a family of four boys the conditions would not be so bad as with a family of two girls and a boy. Would the Amendment mean that the local authority, if they had a case which they considered it advisable to deal with on account of some serious trouble, would not be able to deal with it first because it was not the worst case as regards numbers? This will be a reactionary proposal if it interferes with the power of the local authority to deal with cases of trouble of that kind.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I quite follow my hon. Friend. I do not think the worst cases of overcrowding are to be judged by reference to numbers only, other considerations would be taken into account.
Any programme which dealt with the worst cases first would have regard to the factors which my hon. Friend referred to. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith) knows the difficulties involved in the question of farm cottages, and knows, from the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend in Committee and elsewhere, that the question of farm cottages and overcrowding is to be the subject of further investigation by a committee. He will recollect if he was in the House on Friday that I stated we were proposing by administrative methods to see that in the case of future contributions for the improvement of farm cottages it should where necessary be a condition of a grant that there was an improvement in the accommodation. My hon. Friend suggests that local authorities will be compelled under this Clause to deal immediately with farm cottages which otherwise they would not deal with, but I do not think that position will arise. I do not think their proposals could deal with farm cottages in the first instance, but I will look into the matter to see whether there is a point in regard to the phraseology of the Sub-section to be taken up, and if necessary I will undertake to have it put right in another place.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I wish that this new Sub-section had read: "Living under the worst conditions in regard to houses," because it seems to me that is the important factor. I feel the Subsection is really necessary, because we all know that even local authorities are apt to be influenced by commercial motives. They want things to be a success, and there has been a tendency for them to select as tenants not always those most in need of better houses but those who are likely to be best tenants from what one may call "a landlord's point of view." I think this Amendment will be a useful check upon them and it ought to be inserted.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I wish to reinforce the appeal made in connection with this Amendment. Often after a Bill has been passed we find that we have neglected to make it definite enough to deal with certain types of cases, and I think this Subsection might be much more definite in its instructions to local authorities to deal
with cases such as were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We have frequently raised this point with the Glasgow Corporation and with the Scottish Office, and are always told there is no power to deal exclusively with such cases, urgent as they are from a health standpoint. This question arises frequently where a member of a family has tuberculosis. I have come across three such cases in the last two years. In one case there were eight children and the father and mother—10 in all—in a single-apartment house. For 15 months I was trying to get them another house, although I found that in the meantime people with only two or three in a family had been provided with houses. One boy in that family had returned home from a sanatorium. Although not cured of tuberculosis, he was dumped right back among those young children, spreading infection throughout the home. We were told that the local authority could not deal specifically with that case, although in view of the danger to the health of the other children it was one of great urgency.
We have striven to get special provisions under which cases of this kind could be dealt with effectually, and I appeal to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to go into the matter and to give definite instructions to the authorities to treat them as urgent. May I say, in passing, that I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary back in his place? I regret that he was not present during the Committee proceedings. While the Bill was dealt with very completely and adequately in Committee we did feel that his presence was lacking. I am sure that he and the Secretary of State will be prepared to go into the matter to see whether anything further can be done. After the Bill has been passed I do not want the local authorities to say "Yours was the obligation; you ought to have met your obligations in the House. You cannot now come to us as a public body and ask us to do the things you neglected to do yourselves." While we are waiting for overcrowding to be completely abolished we ought to deal with cases of the type indicated as drastically and as effectively as possible.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: We have heard nothing but commendation, so far, for this proposal, but it does not seem to do
much except to ask local authorities to add something to the report for which the Clause already makes provision. I should like to know whether we have visualised that some regard should be paid to the possibility of differing conceptions of "the worst conditions," in various localities. That was a point touched upon by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). Attention ought to be paid to the matter by the Department, and the local authorities communicated with if they do not act up to this standard. I would draw attention to the statement in Sub-section (2):
it shall be the duty of the authority to cause a further inspection to be made and to prepare and submit a report and proposals as aforesaid as respects their district or any part thereof and where the Department give a direction under this Subsection they may fix dates before which the performance of the said duties is to be completed.
In view of the fact that the worst conditions have now to be indicated, do I take it that the Department will endeavour to get an agreement with the local authorities to submit a report on the time within which they will have dealt with the worst conditions.

Mr. SKELTON: The last point is certainly outwith the scope of the new Subsection. It deals only with the programme, including the steps being taken to deal with the worst cases. It has nothing to do with the date of completion of the programme, which is another matter entirely. Both my right hon. Friend and I have been impressed with what has been said with regard to ascertaining what are the worst cases, but I do not think I can add anything further, except to say that we will look carefully into what has been said, and if words can be added which do not leave the Sub-section too full of detail, which is always a risk, we will consider whether it can be made clearer that the test of the worst houses is not to be only the numbers housed in them but that other considerations are to be taken into account.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I take it that it will include the health conditions as well as the overcrowding?

Mr. SKELTON: We will consider that point.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Definition of overcrowding.)

5.25 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "and height."
In the very early stages of the Committee proceedings the Government were pressed to add the words, "and height" which were the subject of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). When the Government accepted the Amendment, the Lord Advocate said:
In view of the feeling of the Committee, which is that the point should be kept open for further consideration, the Government is prepared to accept the Amendment. I want to utter a warning, however, that that does not mean that the Government is conceding that cubic capacity should supersede superficial area as the test of the capacity of a room in respect of overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; 14th March, 1935, col. 149.]
Although the question of whether the number permitted to sleep in a house should be increased because of the extra height of the ceilings was kept open for consideration, no Amendment with this object was moved, and it will be recollected that the basis of the standard adopted had relation to the floor area of the room. The Committee finally approved that basis and the words "and height" have, therefore, no relation to the factors on which the standard is based, and their retention is inappropriate.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I think the Members of the Committee who followed the Debate will feel rather perturbed at the idea of the Minister withdrawing the concession which was given on the Committee stage. All the Members of the Committee who took part in that discussion backed up the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). At first the Minister opposed the Amendment, but afterwards bowed to the feeling of the Committee and accepted it. It is true that the Lord Advocate warned the Committee that the fact that the Government accepted the Amendment did not mean that they were conceding the point that cubic capacity should supersede superficial area as the test in relation to overcrowding. That is true, but the Minister told us to-day that he accepted that Amendment in consideration of the moving of a later Amendment during
the Committee stage. Since no such Amendment was moved, the Government consider it is now advisable to withdraw the Amendment which was accepted. Having accepted the Amendment under pressure of the Committee, who had shown themselves desirous of having the words added, it was the province if not the business of the Government to add the consequential words in other parts of the Bill, and not to come forward on the Report stage and say that because that has not been done by others the Government withdraw the concession. In doing so, they have taken by surprise those who were Members of the Committee.
The Amendment was accepted after long debate, in which a good number of Members took part. The matter was fully discussed and the reasons were fully given. The great majority of the Committee were agreeable to the idea of height being added, although some thought that this was not the proper place in which an Amendment in regard to height should be placed. Everyone who took part in the debate agreed that the height of a room ought to have consideration as well as floor space by those inspecting a dwelling-house with a view to condemning it or describing it as overcrowded. I trust that the Minister will reconsider the position now taken up by the Government. When the Lord Advocate accepted the Amendment in Committee, no protest was made from any part of the Committee, but the alteration was unanimously agreed to. The Government should have consulted those who were responsible for the Amendment and should have informed them that it was no longer possible to agree to the Amendment, which would be deleted on the Report stage. They should have told us their reasons. As it is, the word "height" appears as part of the body of the Bill, in Section 2 (1, b). It was the duty of the Government either to warn those who were responsible for the Amendment to put down the consequential Amendments or themselves to make those consequential Amendments which the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks ought to have been put down by some of us at a later stage.

5.33 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I was in favour of the words "and height" being put in on the Committee stage, as were most of
us at that time, because we thought that when we came to the Schedule dealing with floor area we would move an Amendment in regard to height. We should not have been able to do that if the word "height" had not appeared earlier in the Bill. When we came to the Schedule, many of us came to the conclusion that it was better not to move any Amendment as to height. As the words "and height" do not appear anywhere else in the Bill I think they are unnecessary, since no Amendment was made to the Schedule. I am glad that the words are being withdrawn, as they are entirely unnecessary.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Lady not in favour of the height of the room being considered?

5.34 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am astonished at the action of the Scottish Office. I flattered myself in having obtained a concession from them when this Amendment was accepted, after the subject has been thoroughly debated. I would like the House to have an idea of what was in our minds when I moved the Amendment. I can well understand why a number of Members opposite are in favour of doing away with height. I would warn the Scottish Office that they are dealing a blow at the Bill by taking height out, because it will permit persons to continue to build camp-ceil houses in Scotland. It was with a view to abolishing camp-ceil houses that we had height put in. We have houses in Scotland which start at the front with a height of only four feet. They have a second storey of four feet, and then they run away to the roof with a height at the ridge of nine feet, also in the second storey. Instead of simply the roof, what are called attics are put in which do away with height. It is true that there is floor space, but there is no height.
It was to counteract that that the Amendment was moved, and I cannot understand for the life of me how the Secretary of State for Scotland has been carried away to such an extent. It was after due consideration and deep deliberation that the Department agreed to this going into the Bill. I do not know what forces have been at work, but the result will be a continuation of a scandalous state of housing, particularly in the rural districts of Scotland. They are a standing disgrace. Talk about the tied houses;
in practically every case this is the kind of house that the tied houses consist of, where men have not a soul to call their own. In Scotland and in England, country servants and agricultural workers are terrified lest the farmer or the landlord should get to know how they have voted.
We thought we had converted the Scottish Office. We discussed the matter with all and sundry, including the officials of the Department, and our original Amendment was modified at the request of the Scottish Office. We agreed to the modification in order to get the substance of it into the Bill. The substance is in the Bill, but at this late hour, without giving us any warning and without considering us, the Government proposes to remove it. That would not be done to any other section of the House; I am forced to say that.
Facts are chiels that winna ding,
An' downa be disputed.
The first intimation that we received was when we got our papers this morning, and we found that the Secretary of State for Scotland, evidently backed by the Under-Secretary, was going to take away the concession which they gave to us, and which would have been beneficial to the housing conditions of Scotland. No longer would attics have been permitted. This is where I get angry. I would not care if the men and women who support this idea would build that type of house and live in it themselves, but they would not, any more than I would; yet they are protecting the building of that type of house in Scotland.

Mr. SKELTON: Has the hon. Member forgotten Clause 7 (4) which deals with floor area?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, Sir. I have not forgotten Clause 7 by any means. We were very sorry, may I say, that the Under-Secretary was unable to be present with us in the Committee stage, but we are all glad to see him back here in his health and strength, so that we may wrestle with him to the best of our ability. If he had been present he would have heard all the different points brought out with regard to height. It was suggested that we should have height only and not area, and I pointed out at the time that we could have, as there is in Scotland, people living in chimneys with no area, or, at any rate, no floor space. If we had area, and floor space
and height it would make it impossible to compel people to live in old chimney stacks.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can the hon. Member tell us of any cases of people living in chimneys such as he has described?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, in Lanarkshire.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can he give us the dimensions of the chimneys?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It would only be a rough dimension—12 feet in diameter. [Interruption.] I do not mean circumference. Evidently it is a low type of mentality with whom I am dealing in this House. I say that in all sincerity. When you are dealing with the housing of our race, they have as much right to good housing conditions as the English. I repudiate the idea at once, because there is no doubt that her Ladyship is quite satisfied that living in chimneys is not so very bad when they are 12 feet in diameter.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I thought that the hon. Member meant 12 feet by 12 feet.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It does not matter how you measure it; it is 12 feet. I am astonished at her Ladyship, because I have always given her credit for being above the average in intelligence, and I am sure that her education has not been neglected to the extent that she does not know that 12 feet in diameter means 12 feet all round, measuring it any way you like. But we are dealing here with a very serious situation. We are dealing with the housing conditions of the Scottish people, and not with Chinese or Indians, and it has been admitted—think of it; it is in cold print—that the housing conditions of our country are among the worst in Christendom. We had an Amendment carried to the effect that not only had the floor space to be of given dimensions, but the room had also to be of a given height.

Miss HORSBRUGH: May I ask what height, because no Amendment was moved specifying any height?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The height at which we are building the rooms of houses in Scotland at the moment is from 8 feet 6 inches to 9 feet.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Did the hon. Gentleman move any Amendment The only reason why I suggested that "height" should be taken out was because no Amendment was moved to say what height.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is begging the question. The fact remains that we want "height" kept in here. It is defined in Clause 7, but it is most important that we should have it inserted in Clause 2. The Committee, after discussing it far nearly a whole forenoon—Members of all parties, and even the women folk took part in it—agreed to height being inserted. I know that her Ladyship did not, but that is by the way. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) confirms the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) supported us. I expected that when women came into the House of Commons they would introduce a more humanitarian atmosphere, but they have done nothing of the kind. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to retain height here, as it is important that that should be done.

5.51 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): I am sorry if the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) should have thought that he has been in any way misled by anything which the Government have done, but I think that his recollection of what took place in Committee is somewhat at fault, and that if he reconsiders what took place there he will find that he has not been misled in any way at all. It is true that he moved an Amendment on Clause 2 of the Bill which was accepted conditionally. My predecessor, in Committee, when accepting the Amendment, said:
In view of the feeling of the Committee, which is that this point should be kept open for further consideration, the Government is prepared to accept the Amendment. I want to utter a warning, however, that that does not mean that the Government is conceding that cubic capacity should supersede superficial area as the test of the capacity of a room in respect of overcrowding."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 14th March, 1935, col. 149.]
The Amendment was accepted for two reasons, to keep the question open, but with a warning that the Government need not necessarily accept the principle of cubic capacity. The question of cubic
capacity arose again on Clause 4—Clause 4 deals with houses of exceptional floor area and of an exceptional type—on an Amendment moved to delete "floor area" and to insert "cubic capacity" in its place. On that Amendment, the whole question of what should be the basis of capacity of a room was gone into very fully by the Committee. It was pointed out that in the best medical opinion the question of lateral rather than vertical room was what was of importance, and, as a result of the very full discussion in the Committee, the Amendment to substitute "cubic capacity" for "floor area" was finally withdrawn. It was perfectly apparent after that discussion that the feeling of the great majority of the Committee was that floor area was to be taken as the test and not cubic capacity. But floor area could not stand altogether alone as the question arose with regard to camp-cell houses, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs has just referred. The question arose on Clause 7, Sub-section (4) with regard to the method to be adopted of measuring rooms by local authorities. It was then made clear by my right hon. Friend that the Department should have a wide general power to prescribe the manner in which the floor area should be calculated. Certain Amendments had been put down in the name, I think, of the hon. and learned Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stevenson) with regard to recesses and with regard to camp-ceil roofs—and the Committee again, after a full discussion, accepted the decision that the method of measurement in a room where there was a camp-ceil ceiling or recess or other things of that sort should be dealt with by regulations prescribed by the Department. From that time onward the question of height and cubic capacity was never raised, and no Amendment was moved on the Schedule, which was the appropriate place. I venture to say that no Amendment was moved because it was perfectly apparent that the Committee had, subject to prescribing with regard to floor area when there was a camp-cell ceiling and the like, accepted the principle that floor area and not height was the proper method of taking the measurement.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: May I ask the Lord Advocate in which part of Clause 7 he
gets his power to take height into consideration in making any of these rules?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Clause says:
The Department shall prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of the First Schedule.
If the hon. Member will refer to what took place in the Committee, he will see that this question of camp-cell ceilings and recesses was fully taken into account, and that my right hon. Friend stated that the Department would prescribe regulations which would deal with these matters.

Mr. MACLEAN: The words of the discussion in Committee do not govern the actions of any local authority. It is what is done there, and, if you take out the word "height" from this part of the Bill, you take away the power to deal with this matter. We are not governed by the words used in Committee, but by the actual wording of the Bill, and the wording of the Bill when it becomes an Act will govern the action of local authorities. If you cut out the word "height" from the Bill at this stage, you will take away the power of any local authority to determine the height when they are issuing any orders under the Bill.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: All that Clause 7 (4) says is that the Department shall prescribe the manner in which the floor area is to be ascertained. There is nothing in that that gives power to prescribe the height. It does not deal with it at all. I feel very nervous about it, because the use of the word "height" is at least a direction to the Department and the local authority that height has something to do with a room. I suggest that something should be put in another part of the Bill which would not exclude height. The Debates may be referred to, and it may be said that the word "height" was going to be considered, but the Department deliberately took it out; therefore, the only consideration is the floor area, and, if the inhabitants have to come in on all fours, it is no business of the local authority what the height is. The right thing to do is to keep the word "height" in, and in another place to put in some Amendment which will show that height is to be a consideration. What people want for health is cubic space. Ten feet is about
the right height for a room, but, unless we have some definition of height, we are going to get into trouble.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I think the Lord Advocate was right when he said that the attitude that he and his colleagues adopted in the Committee was due to the feeling of the Committee, but I am surprised that they have departed from the attitude that height is an important factor. I am not unmindful of the fact that what the Secretary of State called the lateral dimensions are of considerable importance and that you want to have as much space between people as possible, but that does not rule out the important question of height. It has been pointed out that something might be done by the Department in connection with Clause 7 (4). That Sub-section makes no provision for height, but confines those responsible for making the survey to the floor area. There is no provision in any by-laws operating for height to be taken into consideration although the authorities are of the opinion that height is one of the factors that requires consideration. Glasgow is favoured with an exceptionally able set of public officials functioning on the health side, and in their brochure to us they put forward the suggestion that the height of the ceiling provides an additional criterion for the computation of overcrowding. They look on it as something of importance. It was not because of lay opinion but because of expert opinion that the Labour Members in association put the Amendment down. The Association of County Councils suggest that the height of the ceilings should be included in the by-laws. In fact, they made a special note:
The Department have held that provision as to the height of ceilings cannot be included in existing by-laws.
The Sanitary Inspectors Association say that under existing statutes local authorities have no power to regulate the height of ceilings, and it is generally admitted that this power is long overdue. In view of those opinions culled from people who attend to these matters, they are entitled to have facilities to make a good job of what they undertake. The Secretary of State would do well to consider the appeal that has been made to him and to take the opportunity that presents itself to
modify his attitude and make it conform to that of the Committee and those who have the duty of looking after the health of the people.

6.8 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I do not intend to take part in any vote that may take place, but I suggest in all humility to the Secretary of State that he will have to reconsider this matter. I agree in the first place that the words dealing with height in the Clause in question now have no effect whatever in the Bill. They are absolute surplusage. They help nothing and guide no one and could not be regarded as giving any indication of the opinion of Parliament about anything. They do not affect Clause 7 (4) in any way. The only thing they indicate is that at some time or other some one thought of the question of height. They do nothing effective as the Bill now stands. They do not help in the interpretation of Clause 7 (4) and they do not affect it in the slightest.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Before the fright hon. Gentleman rides off in that highhanded fashion, he might tell us why it does not affect it in any way, because what he is saying, in effect, is that the Scottish Office, the whole of the brains that were employed when they accepted that Amendment of mine, are now null and void and that they should not have accepted it at all.

Sir R. HORNE: The Sub-section in which the word "height" occurs says:
A dwelling-house shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons sleeping in the house is, in relation to the number and floor area and height of the rooms of which the house consists, in excess of the permitted number of persons as defined in the First Schedule to this Act.
Therefore, this question of height refers only to what is found in the First Schedule. When you go to the First Schedule you find only number and floor area, and it has nothing at all to do with height, so it is obvious that the word "height" is completely ineffective in the position that it occupies in this Clause. But the House is not insensible to this question of height, as the Lord Advocate must have discovered by this time. I can find nothing else in the Bill which prescribes any question of height. I am certain that the Lord Advocate would never insist that the suggestion
that he made in Committee could give the slightest help in interpreting the Subsection. If there is one thing that has been laid down by courts of law, it is that you can never use a remark that has been made in the course of a Debate in Parliament in interpreting a Statute. Clause 7 (4) does not give any power whatever to consider the question of height and, accordingly, we are left without any guidance at all. You ought to have something in the Bill saying that with a floor area of 110 square feet you must not have less than a certain height. Obviously, it is a totally different room according as you have a height of seven, eight, nine or 10 feet. There is all the difference in the world so far as providing the necessary air space for the people who are to live in it is concerned. I regret that the Lord Advocate rejects cubic space. I have no means of persuading him to alter his opinion on that, but, if he rejects it, when he is prescribing 110 square feet as the least area on which you can accommodate two persons he ought to say what the height of the room is. Without that, it seems to me that anything might happen. I would, with great humility, again suggest that this matter must be dealt with.

6.15 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has shown why the Government thought it well that we should delete the words "and height" in the first instance. I was under the impression that in Subsection (4) of Clause 7 the Department had power to prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room should be computed, and that we could secure the object which all hon. Members are anxious to secure with regard to what you might call camp-ceiling. The Government are anxious to meet the point, and in another place we will move an Amendment to secure that any floor area with a roof above of less than a given height shall not be counted. I may be asked what is to be the given height, but I hope I shall not be pressed to name a particular dimension. The words which I would suggest should be moved in another place would read something like this:
and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or for the bringing into computation at a reduced
figure, of floor space at any part of the room which is of less than a specified height.
I hope I have interpreted correctly the mind of the House on this point. Some Members are anxious that we should go further. We wish to secure that what are called camp-ceilings should be treated separately and differently, and although I am still informed that we have power in the matter under the Clause I have mentioned, I will give an undertaking to add the forms of words which I have suggested in another place. The House may realise that we are fully seized of the feelings which exist in the minds of hon. Members on this matter. I hope the hon. Member who moved this Amendment on the second or third day of the Committee stage will not think it any lack of courtesy on my part that I did not draw the attention of the Committee at a later stage to the fact that the Amendment which the Government had accepted on Clause 2 had repercussions on Schedule 1. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has endeavoured to clear that out of the way, and I hope he has done so successfully. The last thing that I would desire to do would be to engage in sharp practice, or rushing, or going back on any decision taken by the Committee upstairs without informing hon. Members opposite.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be different treatment meted out to campceil roofs. What does he mean by different treatment?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have in mind that floor area with a roof above of less than a given height should not be counted; that is, that the floor area of a part of a room with a very low ceiling above should not be counted.

6.19 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Purely on a question of interpretation, may I point out that if the right hon. Gentleman's intention is to include such words in Clause 7, it might be necessary to have operative words in Clause 2 which would cover height as well as floor area in order to show that floor area entitles one to take into account some element of height as well as merely floor area, which, as defined in Clause 2—because it is defined by reference to the First Schedule—is
nothing but the number of square feet. Unless there is some indication in the operative part that in calculating that you can consider height, it will not be sufficient to introduce it into a later Clause. There must, in the operative part of Clause 2, be something which entitles you to consider the matter of height, which is going to be subsequently considered in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in Clause 7. Whatever the words are, whether "and height," or "including height," in Clause 2, I suggest that there must be something there to show that when you come to floor area in Clause 2, you are entitled to take this element of height into account.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am grateful for assistance in shaping this Bill from whatever quarter it may come, and I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we shall certainly look into that specific matter when the time arrives.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: Since the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting a way out of the difficulty, and proposes to insert certain words in another place, may I suggest that the House has not got those words before it, and that therefore he should leave in the words "and height" in the meantime, until we are able to read the Debate to-morrow and see where we stand? If possible, he could delete these words in another place and insert the words which he suggests then. I think we would rather divide on this question than have these words deleted now.

6.22 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am in the hands of the House in this matter, but the words "and height" are really extraneous. I may be rather slow in coming to a decision on this point, but I am not anxious to run away from it. I want to meet the general desire of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has indicated to us that we may have to put in some further Amendment, in view of the undertaking I have given this evening. Perhaps the House will allow me, having given that undertaking, to consider whether the forms of words which I have read out will be sufficient. I would undertake that the question of the camp-ceiling shall be fully dealt with, and perhaps
with that assurance the House might allow us to delete these words "and height." I may have been misinformed, but I was advised that what hon. Members generally desire was already implied. To make sure, however, I will see that words are inserted in the Act of Parliament so that from now onwards, in the housing conditions in Scotland, these points to which hon. and right hon. Members have drawn my attention will be secured. I will give this further undertaking, that when these regulations are drawn up, we will have regard to the general view of the House on this point.

6.24 p.m.

Sir R. SMITH: The right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) had some difficulty about taking out the words "and height". Would not the easiest way be to take out the words here and to define what you mean by floor area in your definition Clause 13, which is the definition Clause with regard to this part of the Bill? The Secretary of State said the height of the ceiling should not be less than a certain figure, but we want something more than that. We want to be assured that the highest part of the ceiling that may be in the room is also of a certain height as well.

Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the undertaking given by the Secretary of State, I will not further resist the Amendment at this stage.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I hope the suggestion will not be taken—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order. We must obey the Rules of the House. The hon. and learned Member has already spoken on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Offences in, relation to overcrowding.)

6.26 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the occupier of the house is an owner thereof who acquired his title prior to the passing of this Act, the provision with regard to failure to accept an offer of suitable alternative accommodation shall not apply if acceptance of the offer would cause such occupier serious hardship in connection with the disposal of the house.
On the Committee stage there was considerable discussion with regard to the position of owner-occupiers. It was pointed out that they were mostly people of slender means who had bought their houses, not as an investment, but for the purpose of living in them themselves, and that in many cases they were under obligations to building societies and others with regard to instalments. My right hon. Friend then said that he would make inquiries as to the extent to which owner-occupiers would be affected. I do not propose to go into the details of the result of those inquiries, but the inquiries have disclosed that, as regards the larger towns, the percentage of owner-occupier houses is very small. On the other hand, with regard to the smaller burghal communities, the percentage is considerable, and in some cases there is considerable and in other cases substantial overcrowding. It is obvious that it would not be possible in the Bill to set up a standard of overcrowding for the owner-occupier and another standard for other people. In view of the very serious hardship that these people would suffer if they had to move from their house and could not get their house sold, or could only sell it at a very great loss, and in many cases would still be responsible for the instalments to the building society, we think it right that some mitigation should be given. It is therefore for that purpose that I move the Amendment.
In Clause 3, which imposes penalties for overcrowding, Sub-section (2) provides that the occupier who satisfies certain requirements which, taken roughly, are that the overcrowding is entirely due to the presence of his family, and that his family were there on the appointed day, is not to be guilty of overcrowding unless he has failed to accept an offer of suitable alternative accommodation, and also unless he has failed to take steps to remove persons who were not members of his family from the house. It is proposed in our Amendment that the provision in regard to failure to accept an offer of alternative accommodation should not apply in the case of an owner-occupier. That is to say, the owner-occupier who otherwise complies with the requirements of Sub-section (2) would not be guilty of the offence of overcrowding simply because suitable alternative accommodation had been offered and he had declined to accept it. He will, of
course, be required to comply with the other conditions. That is to say, if he has staying in his house a person who is not a member of his family he must remove that person if it is reasonably practicable to do so. Otherwise, failure to accept alternative accommodation will not render him liable to prosecution and the imposition of a penalty. The Clause deals only with owner-occupiers who held the title at the date of the passing of the Act, so that the numbers who will be affected will decrease as the years go on.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provision for seasonal influx of holiday visitors.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 8, after "period," insert "for which."—[Sir G. Collins.]

6.34 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out "four months" and to insert "sixteen weeks."
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that there was a long Debate in Committee on the question of the period, and the Committee decided in favour of four months. The Government accepted that period, but the definition of "four months" has not a very precise meaning, and it is to obviate that position and to bring about that precision which it is so necessary to secure in these matters that we propose to change the words "four months" into "sixteen weeks" which is, of course, practically four months. In this way we make an exact mathematical calculation.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Information in respect to the permitted number, and certification of number and floor areas of rooms.)

6.36 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out from "authority" to "statement" in line 35, and to insert:
as soon as may be after they have ascertained the floor area of the rooms of a dwelling-house, to inform the landlord and the occupier thereof in writing of the permitted number of persons in relation to the house, and, on application by the landlord or the occupier of any dwelling-house, to give him the like information in relation thereto. A.
This Amendment is put down in accordance with a promise made in Committee. Where a local authority had
ascertained the information they did not inform the landlord and the occupier presently in occupation unless application was made for it. The new form of the Clause will make it a duty on the local authority to give the information to the landlord and to the sitting tenant as soon as they get it. The latter half of the Amendment deals with the fact that one does not wish the local authority to have placed upon them the duty of giving similar information to any subsequent landlord or tenant, and if such subsequent landlord or tenant desires the information he must apply to the local authority for it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do we not require to add something in this Amendment in regard to height? The Amendment says:
as soon as may be after they have ascertained the floor area of the rooms of a dwelling-house.
Surely, something ought to be put in about the height? This is simply putting in floor area and nothing in regard to cubic capacity or height.

Mr. SKELTON: The undertaking given by the Secretary of State in the previous discussion that we have had today was that words would be inserted in the other place. It may be—I cannot say more than that at this stage—that the form of these words may involve the necessity of putting in certain words here, but that cannot be decided until the: form of words has been decided upon with a view to an Amendment in another place. I will keep in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Did not the undertaking given by the Secretary of State apply to other parts of the Bill where the same point arises?

Mr. SKELTON: When the particular form of words has been decided upon for Amendment in the other place, the best efforts will be made to see that the Bill is made watertight.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: When the information has been given once by the local authority, is there any obligation to give subsequent occupiers the information? The subsequent occupiers may be farm servants, who would be constantly
changing, and they are not well conversant with the law.

Mr. SKELTON: I dealt with that point in my previous observations. Subsequent occupiers do not get the information except on application.

Mr. MILNE: Is not that a weakness, because farm servants may be the occupiers, and they know nothing about the Act? No obligation is placed upon anybody to give the farm servant information in regard to a matter on which he may or may not be committing an offence.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Duty of landlord to inform local authority of overcrowding.)

6.42 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Clause deals with the duty imposed upon the landlord of informing the local authority of any case of overcrowding in a house let by him which has come to his knowledge. When the matter was discussed in Committee it was pointed out that it would be difficult to prove knowledge on the part of the landlord that a house belonging to him was overcrowded. It was also pointed out by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) that owners who lived on their property would be put in the invidious position of having to play the role of informer against their own tenants, and by that means the good relations existing between landlords and tenants in the country districts would be destroyed. On further consideration we think that there is very great force in both of those arguments.
The purpose of the Clause was to make sure that landlords could not connive at overcrowding on the part of their tenants, and where there was that connivance we proposed to make it an offence which would be punishable by a penalty. It has, however, been our object all along in this Bill to do away with prosecutions and the imposition of penalties wherever that is practicable, as long as we can get the Bill to work efficiently without them. We think that what was aimed at by the insertion of this Clause can be sufficiently secured by other Clauses, particularly Clause 7, which lays upon landlords the duty of informing prospective tenants of the number of persons who are permitted
to sleep in a house, and if they do not do so it is an offence punishable by a penalty. It is also achieved by Clause 10 (2), which requires the submission of information with regard to the occupancy of a house by the tenant on demand of the local authority. We think that these provisions will be sufficient to ensure that the local authority become aware of all cases of overcrowding, and they will then be in a position to take steps, which they are bound to take, to abate such overcrowding.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of local authority to publish information as to rights and duties as respects overcrowding.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 34, leave out "Part I," and insert "this Part."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Duty of medical officers to furnish particulars of overcrowding.)

6.47 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, after "health," to insert "or sanitary inspector."
This deals with a very simple point. Clause 12 says:
It shall be the duty of the medical officer of health appointed by the local authority of any district to furnish annually to the Department and to the local authority in accordance with regulations to be made by the Department particulars with respect to the condition of the district in relation to overcrowding.
In Committee upstairs the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked why the duty was to be imposed specially on the medical officer of health, who was a very busy person, and why it should not be possible to appoint some officer specially for the purpose, or allow it to be done by any one whom the local authority thought fit. The reply made by the Lord Advocate was:
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton we think that the medical officer is the proper person to make the report. No doubt a great deal of the information will be gathered through subordinates. Obviously he cannot do it all himself, but he is the proper person to make the report. His position in this respect is peculiar, in that he cannot be removed from office without the sanction of the Department of Health, so that he is really, in a sense, free. If a local authority should not be carrying out the Act as they ought to he will be free to give to the Department a certain amount of
criticism, which will he very useful to the Department. For that reason we think he is the person from whom we shall get a true—perhaps I should not say a true but a completely unbiased—report on the position in his district."—[Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; 11th April, 1935, col. 468.]
The matter was not pressed in Committee, but since then all Scottish Members have no doubt received a circular from the Sanitary Inspectors Association of Scotland pointing out that they, too, enjoy the same security of tenure as medical officers of health, and that under former Statutes they have been charged with the duties in respect of overcrowding. As they are able to rest their claim on the precise grounds put forward by the Lord Advocate upstairs, I suggest that the Government should accept what is a very reasonable Amendment.

6.50 p.m.

Sir JOHN WALLACE: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has expressed the position so clearly that it is unnecessary for me to add very much to what he has said. I have received strong representations on the subject from sanitary inspectors in my constituency, who feel that they have been rather ignored in the Bill as it stands in a way which is unnecessary and somewhat unexpected. It is believed that if the old system were to remain, whereby the sanitary inspector had the right to report to his own local authority, it would make for a more expeditious administration; and I do not see that the status of medical officers would be in any way affected if the Amendment were accepted. I hope the Government will make this concession to a body of men who are highly trained and efficient, and who are able to report in a most reliable manner to the local authority with whom they are connected.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I mentioned this matter in Committee upstairs. I should prefer that a definite official should be appointed whose duties should be housing duties, and nothing else. That would have been desirable and possible in the large county authorities and in the big cities and burghs; that is, a man who would be responsible to the council direct and not to the medical officer. It is obvious that in roost cases the medical officer of health will have to delegate these duties to somebody else, and in
certain cases he will delegate them to the sanitary inspector. Anyone who knows anything of local administration knows that where an official does not report direct to the committee whose interests he is serving, but to another official, neither the council nor the official can get to close grips with the problems which confront them in their area. I should have preferred a separate official for housing alone, but if that is not feasible, then the suggestion of making the sanitary inspector the alternative official to the medical officer should be accepted.
I am thinking of small burghs inside counties which are housing authorities with housing duties, and speaking from general knowledge, without having checked the facts, I think that a large number of these small burghs do not have a full-time medical officer, but that most of them have a full-time sanitary inspector; and in towns with a population of 5,000 up to 20,000 you are going to impose this duty in connection with overcrowding on the, medical officer of health, who may be a very busy medical man with a large private practice, and who is much dependent on keeping on pleasant terms with his patients. All sorts of difficult complications may arise in a small burgh where the medical officer of health has to perform certain duties under this Bill which might bring him into conflict with his own personal medical practice. I think there is a strong case for accepting the Amendment.

6.53 p.m.

Captain McEWEN: I, also, have received strong representations on this point. There is no doubt that it is the sanitary inspector who will in most cases be making all the inspections, and as no one doubts their competence to report on all other matters, it is rather unfortunate that they should not be considered competent to be responsible for the official statement to the Department of Health. I understand also that the Sanitary In-spectors Association are seriously alarmed as to the way in which their status is being undermined by successive Acts of Parliament, and they regard this particular Bill, rightly or wrongly, as being not the least damaging blow aimed at their status. For these reasons, therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Amendment.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The position in my own constituency differs from that of Glasgow, where the medical officer of health has control over the sanitary inspectors. It is quite different in my constituency, which I think is typical of most other constituencies in Scotland. There the medical officer of health is a part-time official, but the sanitary inspector is a full-time official, and invariably in these circumstances he is the individual who carries out this job. I support the proposal and ask the Government to accept it.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: The Amendment in its present form would leave it doubtful which of the two officials would make the report. It would mean an undetermined responsibility. On the merits of the question which has been forcibly put by several hon. Members, we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter again. There is a variety of different circumstances to consider. That is all I can say at the moment. We will look into the matter with complete impartiality and in the light of the interesting arguments put forward, and, if necessary, make a change in another place. But I would warn the House that it might be in the form of a rather elaborate Clause, because we shall have to consider the different conditions where one officer would be the reporting officer in one area and the other officer the reporting officer in another.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: In view of the reply of the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 14.—(Duty of local authority to secure re-development of areas in certain cases.)

6.57 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 33, to leave out "buildings being either."
There is a series of Government Amendments to this Clause which deals with the size of re-development areas. The Amendment I am now moving and the second one allow re-development areas to be of smaller extent than they are under the Bill as originally drafted. The next Amendment deals with a technical matter, and the last Amendment is
to this effect; Just because we desire to make a re-development area of smaller extent than it is in the Bill as it stands, we also wish to have power with regard to the area, because the House will agree that there should be some check on a local authority which is trying to call a small group of houses or a patch of ground a re-development area. There-fore, in the last Amendment we propose that the Department of Health should have the power of saying to a local authority, "No, this area, although technically of the right size, is really too fiddling to be called a re-development area." The definition of a re-development area as it stands at present is:
that the area contains 50 or more buildings being either working-class houses or buildings which consist wholly or mainly of such houses.
From the character of Scottish working-class houses, each individual house being part, very often, of a large number of houses, in Scotland a re-development area might be of a size which might well be too large for a local authority to grapple with at one time and, therefore, the first two Amendments alter paragraph (a) so to read:
that the area contains 50 or more working-class houses.
That is the minimum allowed for a re-development area.

7.2 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: This is, indeed, an Amendment of substantial size. When this Bill was first introduced the pre-requisites for an area to be called a re-development area were that it should have 50 or more buildings being working-class houses or buildings which consisted wholly or mainly of such houses, and that at least half of the working-class houses in the area were overcrowded. Those were the conditions when the Bill was presented. In Committee, at the request of the Government, the condition of one-half of the buildings being overcrowded was reduced to one-third of the buildings being overcrowded. Now one is faced with a further Amendment to have the 50 buildings reduced to 50 working-class houses. I look at this Amendment in terms of the kind of working-class houses that I know best, which exist in Glasgow and to some extent through the whole of the industrial areas of Lanarkshire. You find 16 working-class houses in one block of buildings, in one tenement,
ranging from the centre in four wings. You get 16 working-class houses in one tenement of no great area. We started the Bill with 50 buildings, which would have meant 16 times 50 houses. We are now reduced to 50 houses. The re-development area for the purpose of the present proposal is reduced to one-fifteenth of what it started with in the Bill and what the Committee passed. That indeed is a very large proposition to put in front of us on the Report stage of this Measure.
I entirely fail to appreciate what is going to happen. You have three blocks. If any one of those blocks can be regarded as overcrowded under the conditions which are described in this proposal, although the other two may be admirable and well suited to their inhabitants, the municipality may proceed to declare a re-development area which may encompass any district of whatever size the local authority may themselves desire for which they can get the approval of the Department. I am not going to trust too much to the Department. I expect things to be very much better defined, so that the House may know what it is passing. I do not want to entrust the powers of this House to the rule of departments, however well-run, because very often people become departmental-minded, and have a very different kind of mental attitude from that of practical men. I have found too many in my own time who were very unappreciative of business considerations, and I do not want to see such an important matter committed to the rule of a Department.
We are faced with this position. You can have any area of which the Department may approve, no matter how large, and it will be sufficient for the municipality to take over the whole of that area for a redevelopment area if they can find one block which they can describe as overcrowded. They can take over the whole area, decide it as a redevelopment area, and acquire compulsorily the property of people whose houses are in it, which are not overcrowded, which have been kept up-to-date, and properly maintained. For my part as a Member of the House of Commons I refuse to give that power to any Department. It is really yielding up the very functions which we are here to exercise, and I would seek from the Scottish
Office in this matter some definition of the kind of area which they propose to enclose and a much larger proportion of overcrowded houses before they be given the power to acquire the property of people who are content to own it, who, in the meantime, are drawing rents from it and who, it is quite certain, will get very inadequate compensation when the municipality takes over their property. I protest against this vast change which has been made at this stage of the Bill. I cannot consent to it.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend is rather extravagant in his statement of the case. I am rather inclined to think that with 50 houses there might be difficulties such as those to which he has referred. There is really more ground covered by three tenements than appears to have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. HORNE: I am thinking particularly of the vast number of tenements in Glasgow.

Mr. GRAHAM: Fifty buildings might mean a couple of streets. It might be considered to mean both sides of a street. But there are difficulties as the Bill stands at present. I am quite willing to admit that there would be a case for some sort of arrangement between the two. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.

7.12 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to say to the Government that I am, of course, pleased that they have modified the provision in regard to these houses being overcrowded by limiting the overcrowding to houses with less accommodation than three apartments. That means to say that if there are 16 houses with three apartments or more which are overcrowded under the standards of this Bill, those houses are not to rank for declaring the area as a re-development one. Only houses of less than three rooms if overcrowded are to be so counted. That is a valuable concession, because that means, I hope, that there will not be so much destruction of three-roomed houses, which, after all, are extremely valuable houses, because they allow for the separation of the sexes. The Amendment will mean the destruction of a great deal of property. Glasgow, we have been
told, has many two-roomed and one-roomed houses. No one wants to see the one-roomed house continued. I think that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) quite misunderstood the attitude of myself and my friends in that matter. I can remember with what pleasure some 25 or 30 years ago I saw the last one-roomed house disappear from a certain corner of Perthshire, but I submit that the two-roomed house has a considerable value for old couples or single persons, and I regret very much that many two-roomed houses are likely to be destroyed as a result of this Bill. Even with this modification the Bill is going to mean the destruction of a great deal of house property that may be in perfectly good condition and may be situated in wide and airy streets, for no other reason than that the houses happen to be occupied by families that are too large for the arbitrary standard of the Bill.
The earlier Amendment, however, is going to widen the area of re-development; it is going to make it easier for a re-development area to be proclaimed. I understand that a re-development area is one in which the local authority is bound to acquire the whole of the land unless the owner of the land can satisfy them that he is going to develop the land in accordance with the proposals of the development plan. It seems to me a very serious matter that, at a time when we know the nation is short of houses and we realise the value of the two-roomed house for one type of family, there should be the destruction of a considerable number of these houses which are in perfectly good condition, and that as a consequence a very great burden will the thrown on public funds.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. TRAIN: I am in some doubt as to the exact meaning of the Amendment. It seems to me from the Government explanation that it is an honest attempt to meet the desires of some of the smaller authorities, which I have no doubt represented to the Secretary of State that a large scheme of 50 buildings would be an expense on the rates, and that thereupon the Government came down to 50 houses. I am afraid that the larger urban areas are being sacrificed for the benefit of the smaller. Take a street in Glasgow, Clydebank, or Dundee, and you find a
great row of tenements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke of 16 houses in each tenement. The commoner thing is to have 12 houses to the tenement—four flats, and three tenants in each flat. Take four tenements of 50 houses. You say "Here are four tenements, and one of them and one or two other houses are in such a state that we must have them condemned and have a re-development area." The whole frontage of those four tenements would be about 160 feet, and there would be a gap in the middle of that street. There is no intention of rebuilding tenements, but rather of reverting to the cottage type of building, four in a block.
How many houses would you accommodate on this ground? You dispossess 50 people and probably provide for a dozen at the most on that 160 foot frontage. If it is part and parcel of a big re-development area and you are going to do it piece-meal, I suggest that 50 houses are too little. Something between that and the original proposal might be decided upon. The Amendment speaks of a house with less accommodation than three apartments. I would like the Under-Secretary to give a definition of what he Means by three apartments. Does he mean the old three-apartment type of house or the new three-apartment type? I think of an area where we built a lot of four-in-a-block houses. Sixty per cent. of the houses built were of two apartments, with a kitchenette and bathroom and all the up-to-date appliances and sanitation. The kitchenettes were as big as the sleeping room defined here. They were of 110 square feet, and the bathroom was about the same size. There was a large living room about 14 by 16 feet, and a bedroom 14 feet by 12 feet. That was called a two-apartment house. They were very popular houses and were opened by the then Secretary of State with a flourish of trumpets. People were very glad to get these two-apartment houses, as they were called.
There are thousands of houses built under the Wheatley scheme and the Addison scheme, and if those houses were overcrowded they would come under this Amendment. There is still a subsidy running along for the next 45 years. If you had to pull them down and re-build them it would land us in a bit of a mess. I would like some explanation as to what is meant. We are all anxious
to see this problem tackled, but let us tackle it in a practical way. It is all very well to have little committees here and there and representations from small burghs, and to try to meet them. But there are the larger burghs as well as the small ones to consider.

7.25 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: I welcome the Amendment as thoroughly practical. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what re-development means. It is a difficult problem in some cases. I have had much experience of re-development under regulations similar to the provisions made in the Bill. I think it is the only way re-development can be carried out. In the Bill we see that the authorities' plan will show an area for working-class houses and open spaces and so on. There may be also an area left for other developments. In Glasgow and most of the Scottish cities, if you look at the plans you will find the streets comparatively straight, with more or less square blocks, and it is very easy to re-develop them. You take block by block piecemeal. The Amendment allows the work to be done half a block at a time, instead of a minimum of nearly one-quarter square mile in area. I hope the House will approve the Amendment.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: In general, this is a new minimum. It must not be taken that every local authority is going to confine itself to a redevelopment area of this size only. What has been impressed upon me, not merely by the smaller local authorities, but by Glasgow and places like Motherwell, for instance, is that if we did not reduce the extent of the re-development area the chances of re-development were few. We have to keep in view that the improvement area provisions of the 1930 Act have gone wrong through faulty drafting. Therefore, it was of very great importance that a provision should be substituted which satisfied local authorities that they can get on with the work.
I quite appreciate the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), with regard to the power that is entrusted to the Department, but on this occasion and in these circumstances I think this is the most practical solution. You give a small minimum instead of a large minimum,
and then you give to the Department of State the duty of saying whether any particular scheme, although it falls within the legal minimum, is not of a sort too small and too fiddling to be allowed to pass. I think this is a practical method and one which is least likely to lead to an impasse. Anyone who has had experience of administration will agree that the Department and the Ministers responsible are always open to challenge in Parliament. That is a safeguard, and Question time every day shows the importance of it. Therefore, although I appreciate the theoretical objections to the solution of the small area, I suggest that in this difficult matter it is the most practical solution. It was suggested by one hon. Member that under the Amendment dealing with the three-apartment houses it might be possible for the Addison houses to be torn down by some ruthless local authority. If that kind of thing were to be part of a re-development plan I think even the most supine department would step in and forbid the expenditure of local money on tearing down the results of previous State expenditure.

Mr. TRAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with my point as to the two-apartment and three-apartment houses?

Mr. SKELTON: The definition of "three-apartment houses" is houses with three living rooms as distinct from the appurtenances referred to by my hon. Friend. I think he will agree that not many of the houses built before the War had those additions which post-war houses possess, although I agree they were not unknown in the pre-war houses. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) made some gloomy prophecies as to the possible, unnecessary destruction of two-roomed houses. I do not share the fear which she expressed. It is true that we have discovered an enormous number of two-roomed houses—some 42 per cent. I believe. I do not think we can deal with the question of those houses until the population is better organised in regard to housing. It may be that there are many people now occupying larger houses who would go into two-roomed houses. There may be a greater demand for two-roomed houses than many contend.
I cannot on this Clause go into the Noble Lady's proposition as to the position of owners of habitable property which is dealt with in an inclusive scheme, but when the suitable occasion arises I shall be glad to deal with that point. It is the case, however, that in the re-development areas and in the comparatively small number of improvement areas under the 1930 Act which have been scheduled, good property wherever possible will be ringed round and excluded from the re-development area. I know that it is possible to make a debating case and possibly a logical case as to the awful dangers of destruction that will arise from development areas, but one has to meet the situation as it is and the situation is that local authorities on the whole are sensible people who do not want to indulge in any unnecessary destruction or extravagance. Further, as I have said, there is the control of the Department and behind that the control of Parliament. I do not think that experience will show that the dangers anticipated by the Noble Lady will arise in practice. I remember in connection with a previous Bill prophecies that its provisions were so complicated that it would not work. Those prophecies of disaster were not fulfilled and as a matter of fact many things which seem complicated when presented in a form of words, are not so difficult or so dangerous when dealt with in practice. I commend these Amendments to the House from the point of view of one who is most undesirous of spending either public or local money unnecessarily or destroying any property unnecessarily.

7.35 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is it not the case that one of the conditions on which a local authority is obliged to declare a re-development area is that not less than 16 or 17 houses in the area are inhabited by too large families, without regard to the condition of the houses. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman feels that it may be some time before we know the settled demand of the nation for two-roomed houses, will his Department advise local authorities to be extremely chary in the meantime as to pulling down any two-roomed houses that are in good condition?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the Noble Lady a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members cannot question each other across the Floor of the House. We must debate this subject in the proper way.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. When I was giving facts as to the condition of certain people in Lanarkshire the Noble Lady asked me where those conditions existed, and I answered her question. Now she has said that there are certain authorities in Scotland who will act in a ruthless manner under these provisions. I want her to state to the House where are the local authorities who are going to behave in this ruthless fashion. She does not know one.

Mr. SPEAKER: She would not be in order in stating them now if she did know.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I have an answer to my two questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady has already made two speeches.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 34, leave out from "houses," to end of paragraph.

In line 37, leave out from "area," to end of paragraph, and insert:
fall within any one or more of the following categories, that is to say—

(i) overcrowded and with less accommodation than three apartments;
(ii) unfit for human habitation, and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit; and
(iii) so arranged as to be congested."—[Mr. Skelton.]

7.38 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 15, to leave out "shall," and to insert:
unless the Department within one month after the receipt thereof intimate to the authority their disapproval of the resolution, the authority shall as soon as may be after the expiry of the said period of one month.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Under-Secretary explain the meaning of the words that it is proposed to insert?

Mr. SKELTON: I thought I had already dealt with that point. As a result of reducing the extent of the re-development area—to which the House has
already agreed—it seemed necessary that the Department should have this power of saying "No" in certain circumstances. The policy of the Amendment is that you reduce the extent of the area but you provide a departmental check—and finally it is open to Parliament—to say "No" in cases where the new minimum is found in fact to be too small.

Mr. GUY: I have no objection to the Department having this veto, but I should like to know in what circumstances it will be exercised. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the case of an area which was found to be too small. Would it also be exercised in a case where all the houses in an area were found to be substantially sound but where there was a certain amount of overcrowding and a certain number of two-roomed houses. If the Department held that the circumstances were not such as to warrant going ahead with the re-development scheme, in a case of that kind, would they exercise the veto?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not wish to lay down definitely exact sets of circumstances in which the Department would exercise the veto, but one or two instances may be given. A local authority of substantial size might propose to confine its activities to a small patch, whereas a wise view of town planning and reconstruction would make it desirable to consider a wider area. The Department in such a case might well say, "Before we give our consent to your scheme for dealing separately with this small area, what are your views on the wider area?" Similarly, there might be a case in which the general circumstances would not warrant the scheduling of a particular bit as a re-development area. I should prefer not to lay down hard and fast rules. In practice it will be necessary to be guided by the circumstances of individual cases. I conclude by again emphasising the constitutional aspect of the matter. Hon. Members who fear that the Department may exercise its veto in an unreasonable or an unwise way should remember that on the very next day after any decision has been taken, they will have the opportunity of challenging that decision in Parliament. That is the final safeguard.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Re-development plan.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 21, leave out "passed," and insert "published a notice of."

In line 26, leave out "and," and insert "for the erection."

Leave out lines 33 and 34, and insert:
(3) Unless the Department, within one month after the receipt of the re-development plan, intimate to the local authority their disapproval of the plan, the authority shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of the said period of one month.

In line 37, leave out "is about to be,"

In page 10, line 7, leave out from "on," to end of paragraph, and insert "all public undertakers owning apparatus in that area."

In line 14, after "served," insert:
under the last foregoing sub-section, or by the superior of, or any holder of a heritable security over, land in the defined area."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Purchase of land for the purposes of re-development.)

7.46 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out from "or," to "and," in line 12, and to insert:
which is the property of public undertakers, having been acquired by them for the purposes of their undertaking.
This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the proposal to insert in the definition Clause a definition of "public undertakers." I think it is right that I should explain at this stage, in order to save time later, that the words "public undertakers" instead of "statutory undertakers" are used because in Scotland most gas undertakers, in so far as they are not public authorities do not have statutory powers. They are public utility companies which are not operated under Statute, but under agreements with local authorities. Accordingly, the words "statutory undertakers" which have been inserted in a number of places in the Bill would not meet the case of Scotland as regards these undertakers.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Will this Amendment take away the protection of the larger burgh authorities, such as Glasgow and other public undertakers, which are at present protected under statutory rights?

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the definition Clause, he will see that statutory undertakers are protected.

Amendment agreed to.

7.48 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, after "undertaking," to insert:
or of any land the dwelling-houses or other premises on which are not to be demolished as soon as existing contracts permit.
This Clause deals with exceptions to the powers of the local authority to acquire land compulsorily. As the Lord Advocate has explained, there is now to be excepted, quite properly, the property of public undertakers which has been acquired for the purposes of that undertaking. I seek to have exempted also any land the dwelling-houses or other premises on which are not to be demolished as soon as existing contracts permit. This Amendment is directed against the compulsory acquisition of property which the local authority does not mean to get rid of for the purposes of re-development within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, there have already been instances in which local authorities have compulsorily acquired tenements which they have continued to keep and from which they have been drawing rent, while the proprietor has been expropriated. The local authority should not have power in connection with the re-development of an area to acquire property which they do not mean to demolish. I do not mean that they should demolish it at once, because sometimes there is a lease running which entitles the lessee to hold the property for a pertain period. If, however, the local authority is given power compulsorily to acquire property they ought only to acquire it if they intend immediately to demolish it for the purposes of re-development. It would be unconscionable if they had power to acquire property and to hold it in their hands while the proprietor looks on at the authority drawing the rent which otherwise he would have drawn. That would be all the more poignant because I am certain that under this Bill the compensation for expropriation which is to be given would not in any way meet the needs of the original proprietor. In these circumstances, I think that the Government
should be ready and willing to exclude from these powers of compulsory purchase any properties which the municipal authority does not need for its purpose within a proper and reasonable time.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: The first point about which my right hon. Friend is concerned is the possibility of purchase by a local authority of houses which they do not propose immediately to demolish. He says that the power of compulsory purchase should only be used in cases where it is necessary for re-development. That point has not been overlooked. I would ask the House to turn to Clause 18 (1) where a, novel provision for assessing compensation is laid down. It says:
In assessing compensation the arbiter may take into account and embody in his award any undertaking given by the local authority with respect to the time within which, and the manner in which, the re-development or any part thereof is to be carried out, and the terms of any undertaking so embodied in the award shall be binding on and enforceable against the authority.
The meaning of that provision is that where a local authority propose to buy compulsorily in one year, and it is made clear that it is not going to do anything with the property until four, five or six years' time, the arbiter must take into account the fact that the property would still be in existence for a number of years, and he must not assess it on its present value, but take into account that it may rise in value, and so on. In short, the owner must not be dispossessed and given a value which the local authority would make use of. This provision is, we believe, a sufficient safeguard to the first point made by my right hon. Friend.
The other point of my right hon. Friend is a substantial one and requires a substantial answer. His proposition is that a local authority should only acquire houses in a re-development area if they intend completely to demolish them. That, I fear, would not meet all the situations that might be figured. For instance, it might be necessary for the purposes of the really good planning and reconstruction of an area to lower the height of a building. One knows of instances where the building would not be in the least offensive from a planning point of view if it were a three-storied building instead of a six-storied building, but if that is done it is not demolition,
but only reconstruction. There is the rarer case in which it might be possible quite properly to raise the height of a building. That, again, would be alteration and not demolition. There is also the case where a building might be required to be partly destroyed for the purpose of reconstructing a street.
While I fully appreciate the object which my right hon. Friend has, I do not think his proposal is practicable. We must give the local authorities elastic powers, but I venture to say what I said to my Noble Friend on the last Amendment, that, after careful discussion and consideration of the probable form of a re-development area, the House may take it that, wherever possible, where there is a good building in a re-development area, the continued existence of which is of no serious harm to the re-development, it should be excluded from the area. That procedure has already been adopted in some of the improvement areas that have been scheduled under the 1930 Act. I think, in fact, the tendency will be that, unless there is some strong reason such as I have indicated, and other reasons, for the inclusion in the re-development area of a perfectly good structure, a local authority will exclude it. I do not want to say that categorically, because it may not always be so, but it is one of the elements that have to be kept in mind in considering this matter. In view of the considerations which I have put forward, I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment, because I think that we have substantially met the serious point to which he called attention.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: I believe the authority is not obliged to give the undertaking mentioned in Sub-section (1) of the Clause.

Mr. SKELTON: No, but it is a very definite guide to the arbiter. I would be prepared to consider whether the language could not be made more definite.

8.0 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would it be possible, in view of what my hon. Friend has said as to the possibility of a good building being left standing in a re-development area, for him to ask his right hon. Friend to consider, between now and the time when the Bill appears in another place, whether he could not insert some words that would show that
it would be possible for such a building to be left? He referred us to the 1930 Act. I have not looked it up, but my recollection is that that Act makes it clear that that is a difference between an improvement area and a clearance area, that in a clearance area everything is cleared, but in an improvement area something may be left standing. A great deal of anxiety would be allayed if the Government could introduce some words dealing with this point.

Sir R. HORNE: In view of my hon. Friend's explanation, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.2 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 23, after "person," to insert:
or excambed for other land which the local authority have power to acquire either with or without paying or receiving money for equality of exchange.
This is a technical and in one sense a drafting Amendment. Clause 16 provides for the acquisition by a local authority of land in a re-development area, and in Sub-section (4) it is provided that any
land purchased by a local authority under this Section for the provision of houses for the working classes shall be deemed to have been acquired by them under Part III of the Act of 1925.
Section 45 of that Act of 1925 gives the local authority power, with regard to land bought for the provision of working-class houses, to develop the land or to sell, feu, lease, or excamb the land. I ought to explain, for the benefit of those hon. and right hon. Members who have not the good fortune to come from the other side of the Border, that that is in Scotland the legal term for the exchanging of land. Under Sub-section (5) of this Clause as it stands, with regard to land purchased other than for the provision of houses for the working classes, the power which is given is to sell, feu, or lease. There is no reason why they should also not have power to excamb, because an exchange might in certain circumstances be of very great use.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Extension of power of local authority to acquire houses and other buildings for housing purposes.)

8.5 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, after "buildings," to insert:
(not being houses or buildings situated on land entered in the valuation roll as agricultural lands and heritages and required for the purposes for which such land is used).
This Amendment is put down to redeem a pledge given by my right hon. Friend to the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) on the Committee stage, when my right hon. Friend said, in reply to the hon. Member:
He asked me whether local authorities would have power to buy a tied house and so upset the economy of a farm. I do not think for one moment they would do so, but if he would prefer that some Amendment be made at a later stage, I would gladly give an undertaking to insert in the Bill words which will make clear that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 1st May, 1935; col. 645.]
This Amendment is intended to meet that pledge, and I think it does so.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I want to thank my hon. Friend for the trouble which the Government have taken in drawing up this Amendment in fulfilment of the pledge which they gave. Although I do not suppose it could have been the intention of the Bill that what I feared might be done should be done, I think it is well to insert these words in order to remove certain apprehensions that existed.

Amendment agreed to.

8.7 p.m.

Sir R. HORNE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, to leave out "are, or may be made, suitable," and to insert "are being used."
The Clause deals with the re-conditioning of buildings and proposes to give power to local authorities to acquire compulsorily, for the purpose of Part III of the Act of 1925, any houses or other buildings which are or may be made suitable as dwelling-houses for the working classes. I entirely sympathise, of course, with local authorities being allowed compulsorily to acquire such houses, and I am entirely in favour, as I daresay the Committee will have understood from the somewhat long speech that I made, of re-conditioning by
the local authorities as well as by private bodies. I think, however, that the power which my right hon. Friend seeks to give to local authorities here is unnecessarily extensive and might upon occasion be open to considerable abuse. In the re-conditioning of working-class houses, obviously all that is required to be obtained is the property itself. I have already described to the House the kind of tenements which we have in Glasgow, where you have single-room houses flanked by double-room houses on each side, and the easiest re-conditioning of these houses would be to convert the single room in between the two flanking double rooms into two bathrooms, emerging into the houses on each side.
In that way you would have a series of two-room houses, with appropriate sanitary accommodation, in fabrics and buildings which to-day are as good as when they were put up. That would enable working-class people to get, much more readily than they will under the other Clauses of this Bill, a type of house which would be very convenient to live in. Why should the power be extended for the acquisition of houses which might be made suitable for working-class accommodation? I can scarcely conceive of any house which could not be made suitable for working-class accommodation. You might take any district you like and say that it would be very convenient for a certain number of people to live there, and you might take over a series of villas and adapt them, for which purpose you may compulsorily expropriate the inhabitants into working-class houses. That is a power which is quite unnecessary and which, by many local authorities, could very readily be abused. The situation could be taken advantage of quite unnecessarily, for reasons which might be somewhat outside the ordinary motives which inspire people in the acquiring of these houses.
In these circumstances, I suggest that the purpose of the Bill would be entirely served if the power to re-condition houses by the local authorities were confined to houses which are already in existence and are being used as working-class houses. Heaven knows, there is a big enough job to be done in that direction in most of the communities in the West of Scotland, and I submit that the local authorities will have plenty of scope for
their efforts without dangling in front of them possibilities of other forms of acquisition which are entirely unnecessary and which, as I have already said, might be open to considerable abuse.

8.12 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has very consistently urged that the Government should insert in this Bill powers to re-condition property, but the Amendment to which we are now directed would have the effect, no doubt unintentionally, of taking away certain powers which the local authorities already possess under the 1919 Act. Further, in Section 44 (1, b) of the Act of 1925, local authorities were given powers of compulsory acquisition of non-working-class houses which might be made suitable, by conversion or re-conditioning, for working-class accommodation. It is true that this Clause goes a little further and will give power to local authorities to purchase working-class dwellings which may be re-conditioned by local authorities. I think, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman realises that the wording of his Amendment runs counter, not only to the expressed intentions of Parliament as far back as 1919, but to intentions which found expression also in the Act of 1925, an Act passed six years after the first Act had been passed, and after no doubt some experience had been gained of the 1919 Act, he will not expect the Government to-day to go back upon what has been on the Statute Book in one case for upwards of 16 years and which found expression in the further Act of 1925. If these words were inserted powers would be taken away from the local authorities which they at present possess, and that might have the effect of restricting the improvement of working-class houses. For this and other reasons the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
He spoke of these powers leading to abuse. I am sure that no hon. Member in any part of the House desires that the wide powers entrusted by Parliament to local authorities should be abused. Throughout the discussions on this Bill I have always been very anxious to find out any particular case in which local authorities have abused their powers, and if now, or in the future administration of this Bill, any case is brought to the notice of myself or anyone connected with the
Scottish Office showing prima facie that a subject of the realm is being unfairly treated either by local authorities or the officials of the Department I will immediately look into the matter. I realise that when these large powers are being transferred to these authorities subjects of the realm may naturally feel apprehensive, and having sat in this House for many years in opposition to the Government of the day, and having voiced the views of those who opposed the Government, I sympathise completely with those who are jealous of the powers which Parliament entrusts to Departments and local authorities. If any cases can be brought forward in which there has been abuse or hardship or unfairness to any inhabitant of Scotland who owns these properties I will look into it sympathetically, but as this particular Amendment runs counter to the expressed intentions of Parliament and would have the effect of restricting the powers of the local authorities to make the best use they can of the properties in their areas for the better housing of the people I regret that I am unable to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 15, line 23, at the end, insert:
and the following proviso shall be added at the end of the said Sub-section:—
'Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section shall authorise a local authority to acquire (otherwise than by agreement) any house or other building which is situated on land entered in the valuation roll as agricultural lands and heritages and is required for the purposes for which such land is used.'

In line 34, leave out "leasing, feuing, or selling," and insert "selling, feuing, or leasing."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.)

8.20 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, after "committee," to insert:
of whom one member shall be a representative of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers.
We are now dealing with a Clause which sets up the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, and as the Clause reads the Secretary of State has complete discretion as regards the appointment of the Members of the Committee. I would draw attention to paragraph (b) of Sub-section
(1) of the Clause, which gives the Advisory Committee the duty of advising the Housing Management Commissions set up under Clause 24. Hon. Members will notice that Clause 24 (2, h) imposes on the Commission
the duty to consult the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee as respects any matter specified in the scheme.
that is, the scheme for setting up the Housing Management Commission. It is clear that the duties placed on the members of the Advisory Committee are very wide, and it is important, therefore, that the right kind of people should be appointed to it. In moving this Amendment I am not pressing the claims of women as such to be appointed to the Committee, because that principle is to be adopted by my right hon. Friend in the next Amendment on the Order Paper, but I am pressing the claims of those who are specially qualified to act as members.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will you tell us how the members of this society are better qualified than others?

Mr. GUY: If my hon. Friend will allow me I will make my point. This particular society has, I understand, special qualifications as regards housing management. The members of the society, who number some 200, have all had special and practical training in property management, and have had very considerable experience throughout the country, mainly in England but to some extent in Scotland. Among other things, they have managed some 6,000 tenancies in connection with a public utility society. I quite expect that my right hon. Friend will make the objection that it is not advisable at this stage to put upon him the duty of saying who shall be members of the Advisory Committee, because that would involve setting up a Schedule to this Clause, but I would point out that during the Report stage of the English Housing Bill a similar Amendment was moved, and although that Amendment was not accepted the then Minister of Health used these words:
I recognise that the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers is a most admirable organisation, which gives a local habitation and a name to this most beneficial development of housing administration, but I do not think it would be right to begin to legislate as to the particular Members of the Committee.
He went on to say:
However, and this may meet my hon. Friends, I will undertake to give full consideration to the representations made to-night on behalf of the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers when it comes to the formation of the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1935; Col. 110, Vol. 302.]
That is all that I want my right hon. Friend to consider. I hope he will give the House an assurance that, when he comes to the stage of nominating members of the committee, he will give favourable consideration to the claims of this society. In particular, I ask him to keep in mind the question of house management. Property management is one of the most important points in the problem of the adequate housing of the working classes.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

8.26 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: In his concluding remarks the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) asked me to give favourable consideration to a body described as the Society of Women Housing Estate Managers. I readily give that assurance, for the reason that in the choice of members of the committee we shall endeavour to secure only the very best people competent for the purpose which Parliament authorised. Although I have no intimate knowledge of the society to which the hon. Member has referred, I have no doubt, as he has voiced their case, that he has made himself cognisant with their capabilities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think it shows the reverse.

Sir G. COLLINS: I think the House will agree that no body should be specially favoured, but I readily give my assurance that when we come to make the choice we shall endeavour to secure the very best people.

Mr. GUY: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) wishes to withdraw his Amendment on the ground that an assurance has been given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I would point out that all that has
been said by the right hon. Gentleman is that he will get the very best people. That is not an assurance that he will consult the society mentioned in the hon. Member's Amendment. It might mean the reverse. The only case made out by the hon. Member was that the society knows something about the building of 6,000 houses. Glasgow Corporation have already built 38,000 houses, and 6,000 houses are comparatively small in number. I was anxious to hear what he might say on behalf of the society, because I might have given him my support, but all he said about these people who have a divine inspiration for the job was that they had built 6,000 houses.

Mr. GUY: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard me say that all the members of this society have had technical training in house management.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to know what training they have had. Is it a university training or a training at some college or some school of domestic science? I came down here sympathetically inclined towards them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: Specialised bodies such as that put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) are not always the best type of organisation to deal with questions of overcrowding. On the other hand, there are people in Scotland who, although not connected with organisations of that character, yet have an intimate personal experience in Scotland of the details of the requirements of the people concerned. They have a larger knowledge than many of those who have gone through domestic science colleges. While the Minister has given an assurance that he will consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, I hope that he will also keep in mind the fact that there are people unconnected with such bodies who would be able to give him ample service.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) has not made out a case for the society which he represents. I would not attempt to dictate to the Secretary of State for Scotland as to his choice of representatives, but I agree with him that only the best people with the greatest knowledge
and experience should be chosen. At the same time it is important that women should be represented, and he has admitted in the Bill—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is now anticipating the next Amendment, in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. McGOVERN: I did not intend to go into that subject, but merely wished to mention the fact that when one sees the poor types of houses being built in many parts of the country it becomes obvious that the inspiraton of women is badly required in relation to the housing problem.

Amendment negatived.

8.33 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 25, to leave out from "order," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
shall secure the inclusion in the committee of women as well as men, and the appointment of two sub-committees of the committee for the purpose of dealing with matters relating to urban and rural housing respectively.
(3) Any order under the last foregoing Sub-section may be varied by a subsequent order.
This Amendment brings us to the question of women, whose inspiration we need. It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that an undertaking was given during the Committee stage that these words would be inserted on the Report stage. It was pressed upon us by hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, and we had great pleasure in very readily falling in with their wishes. This Amendment carries out specifically the undertaking that was given to the Committee. We realise that the inclusion of women on these bodies is essential for the efficient functioning and carrying out of their duties, and we shall endeavour to secure that the very best women, whose services have always been so freely given in public work in Scotland, are appointed on these advisory committees.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power to establish Housing Management Commissions.)

8.35 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, after "staff," to insert:
including trained women property managers.
This is a very similar Amendment to that which I previously moved, except that it deals with the staff of the housing commissions. It is equally important that the staffs of these commissions, apart from the question whether they are men or women, should be properly trained. There are certain women who have gone into this profession of housing management, and, if there is a good supply of women candidates for these vacancies when they occur, I venture to suggest that they should be considered, not from the point of view of preference for them because they are women, but, as my right hon. Friend said on the previous Amendment, from the point of view of getting the best available people for this work.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
After the sympathetic remarks of the Secretary of State as to, the importance and expediency of having trained women to carry out the duties which housing management commissions will be empowered to carry out under the Bill, I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more in seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment.

8.37 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure my hon. Friends will understand that it is undesirable to specify in the Bill any particular type of staff, because that might lead to the exclusion of others. Moreover, I am informed that the term "trained women property managers" has no specific legal meaning, so that, when the words came to be interpreted, not merely by those who will be administering the Act to-day, but by those who will have to administer it to-morrow, they might find themselves in some difficulty. I assure my hon. Friends, however, that the Government will give the most sympathetic consideration to any proposals in schemes submitted under the Clause for the employment of women property managers by housing management commissions, and I hope they will feel that that assurance is reasonably satisfactory.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.38 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, to leave out "payment to persons so employed of."
This Amendment and the following one—in line 19, to leave out "of superannuation allowances," and insert "the superannuation of persons so employed"—are purely drafting Amendments. Taken together, they will make the paragraph read as follows:
(c) as to the employment by the Commission of officers and staff and the remuneration out of funds under the control of the commission and the superannuation of persons so employed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 19, leave out "of superannuation allowances," and insert "the superannuation of persons so employed."

In page 18, line 2, leave out from "provide," to "for," in line 4.

In line 5, leave out from "enactments," to end of Sub-section, and insert:
(including schemes) governing the superannuation of persons employed by the local authority for the purposes of the superannuation of persons employed by the Commission as if they had been persons employed by the local authority and as if employment by the Commission had been employment by the local authority."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Power of local authorities to make arrangements with housing associations.)

Amendments made: In page 20, line 14, after the first "to," insert "such matters including the."

In line 15, after "and," insert "the."

In line 16, leave out "and otherwise."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 40.—(Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 31, line 6, to leave out "at any time," and to insert "for the purpose of the provision by them."

In line 8, to leave out "for the purposes of," and to insert "of housing accommodation for the working classes under."

In line 9, to leave out the third "of," and to insert "under."

In page 32, line 7, after "sold," to insert "or otherwise disposed of."

In line 9, to leave out "the proceeds of sale," and to insert "capital money received by the authority in respect of the transaction."

In line 11, after "direct," to insert "as respects the whole or any part of such income."

In line 16, leave out from "authority," to "shall," in line 21, and insert "for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) of this Section."—[Sir G. Collins.]

8.40 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 31, line 6, to leave out "at any time," and to insert "for the purpose of the provision by them."
As the Clause stands, a local authority is required to include in a housing revenue account, not only loan charges on money borrowed for the purpose of the provision of the houses to which the account relates, but also such items as loan charges on money borrowed for the purpose of making grants to private enterprise under the Act of 1923, or of making advances to public utility societies under Section 75 of the Act of 1925. This would involve including in the housing revenue account items which are really outwith the activities of the local authorities, and which relate to transactions carried on on behalf of others, that is to say, of private enterprise or of a public utility society. These Amendments are necessary because the authorities may receive capital money in respect of the disposal otherwise than by sale of houses or land to which the housing revenue account relates. For instance, land not required by the authority for its own housing operations may be leased for a long period on the payment of a capital sum. Transactions of this kind were not included in the Clause as it was originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 31, line 8, leave out "for the purposes of," and insert "of housing accommodation for the working classes under."

In line 9, leave out the third "of," and insert "under."

In page 32, line 7, after "sold," insert "or otherwise disposed of."

In line 9, leave out "the proceeds of sale," and insert "capital money received by the authority in respect of the transaction."

In line 11, after "direct," insert "as respects the whole or any part of such income."

In line 16, leave out from "authority," to "shall," in line 21, and insert "for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (i) of sub-section (1) of this section."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Housing repairs account.)

8.45 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 33, line 32, after "repair," to insert "improvement."
The object of this Amendment is to enable moneys standing to the credit of the housing repairs account to be used for the purpose not only of repairing and maintaining local authority houses but of carrying out improvements. It has been pointed out that, as the Clause is drafted, if a local authority wanted to improve some of their houses by inserting electricity they might not be able to use money standing to the credit of their housing account for the purpose. It seems a very obvious and proper course that Parliament should entrust them with that power.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 33, line 42, leave out "thereof, or such larger amount," and insert:
(exclusive of any amount included therein in respect of occupiers' rates), and such amount, if any.

In page 34, leave out lines 3 to 9.

In line 22, after "repair," insert "improvement."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 44.—(Temporary application of moneys in housing accounts.)

8.47 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 35, line 26, to leave out from "may," to "and," in line 30, and to insert:
be used by the authority for the purpose of any statutory borrowing power possessed by them subject to the conditions specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section.
The object of the Amendments to this Clause is to give local authorities greater freedom to invest money in their equalisation accounts. There must be certain general conditions laid down under which local authorities can invest sums at their disposal in their equalisation accounts, and it is in order to give them greater freedom to make use of that money and at the same time to secure that there shall be some general conditions, which will be agreeable, I have no doubt, to
local authorities, that these Amendments are proposed.

Mr. GUY: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for carrying out the assurance that he gave in Committee that he would put down these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 35, line 30, leave out "applied," and insert "used.

"Leave out lines 33 to 36, and insert:
and an amount equal to the income arising from such investment shall be credited to the account.
(2) The conditions subject to which moneys may be used as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be the following (that is to say):
(a) the moneys so used shall be repaid to the account out of the county or burgh fund within the period, and by methods within, and by which a loan raised under the statutory borrowing power would be repayable:
Provided that the authority shall repay to the account the moneys so used or the the balance hereof for the time being outstanding, as the case may be, and when reiqured for the purposes of the account, and may make such repayment at any time within the period aforesaid and in either case the repayment shall be made out of the aforesaid fund or out of moneys which would have been applicable to the repayment of a loan if raised under the statutory borrowing power;
(b) in the accounts of the county or burgh fund an amount equal to interest (calculated at such rate as may be determined by the authority to be equal as nearly as may be to the rate of interest which would be payable on a loan raised under the statutory borrowing power) on any moneys so used shall be credited to the account and debited to the branch of expenditure for the purpose for which the moneys are so used;
(c) the statutory borrowing power shall be deemed to be exercised by such use as fully in all respects as if a loan of the same amount had been raised in exercise of the power and the provisions of any enactment as to the re-borrowing of sums raised under the statutory borrowing power shall apply accordingly."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 46.—(Power to withhold contributions in the event of default.)

8.51 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 36, line 2, to leave out "either."
As the Bill stands, the Department's power to withdraw or refuse subsidies is limited to a case where a local authority
fails to carry out one of its duties under the Act. It is desired to extend that power and to apply it to a case of failure to carry out a power. The object of the Amendment is to strengthen the Department's hands in connection with the provisions of Clause 47, giving local authorities power to grant rebates of rent to their tenants. This power is optional, but it is a fundamental part of the Government's policy that local authorities should exercise this power of giving rebates in order that their houses may be let, particularly to low wage earners, at rents within the tenants' means. The financial arrangement of the scheme is devised on the basis that rebates will be given where necessary and the Amendment places in the hands of the Department a reserve power to be used in any case where a local authority refuses to make rebates.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 36, line 5, at the end, insert:
(b) failed to exercise any of their powers under the aforesaid Acts in any case where these powers ought to have been exercised; or."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 47.—(Conditions to be observed by local authorities.)

8.54 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, in page 37, line 10, to leave out from the beginning to "may," in line 17, and to insert "but."
There was considerable discussion in Committee as to the use of the words "maximum rent," and the general view was expressed that they should be deleted because they might lead to a misunderstanding of the situation. This and the following Amendment will have the effect of deleting from the Sub-section the provision for the determination by the Department of the maximum rents. No new policy, however, is intended by this change. It is still the policy of the Government, as my hon. Friend has said, that low wage earners should obtain accommodation at rents which they are able to pay. It is only the method of achieving this end which is being changed. The determination of a maximum figure which would limit the rents paid by low wage earners in a district or in different parts would present considerable difficulties, and therefore, instead of limiting the rent based on the
maximum rent which we had in the Bill, we have now discarded those words, and the Clause will read:
In fixing rents the authority shall take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by persons of the working classes in the locality but may grant to any tenant rebates from rent subject to such conditions as may be prescribed with a view to ensuring that rebates are granted only in such cases and of such amounts as may be necessary, having regard to the financial circumstances of the tenant.
I think that the House will see from the undertaking I have just given that there is no change. It is simply the deletion of the words "maximum rent" which we were anxious to secure if possible, and by this means we have secured it. It is for that purpose that we have put the Amendments on the Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, leave out lines 20 to 24, and insert:
with a view to ensuring that rebates are granted only in such cases and of such amounts as may be necessary, having regard to the financial circumstances of the tenant."—[Sir G. Collins.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Re-development by owners.)

8.58 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 39, line 5, to leave out "demolished," and to insert "vacated."
Sub-section (2) of the Clause as it stands applies only to a controlled house which, under the proposals submitted by an owner to the local authority, is to be demolished. The owner's proposals, however, for redevelopment might entail, not the demolition of the house, but its reconstruction for other purposes. It seems reasonable, I think the House will agree, that where this is the case the local authority should be enabled to give a certificate that under the Sub-section suitable alternative accommodation will be provided, that is to say, in the case where the house will no longer be available. The Amendment has been accordingly put down in order to meet not only the case where the house is demolished, but also the case where the house is to be reconstructed. This is a simple point, and I do not think I need say any more about it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Local authority may resolve to demolish obstructive building.)

8.59 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 40, line 11, to leave out "twenty-one days," and to insert "one month."
This Amendment and the following Amendments on the Paper to Clause 53 down to and including a new Sub-section (5) are put down to implement a promise which was given in Committee that where there is a proposal to remove an obstructive building, a similar notice as that which is served on the owner should be served on the superior and on any heritable creditor. The Amendments are merely machinery in line with the machinery for giving notice in other parts of the Bill to give effect to that promise. If I am in order, I should also like to mention an Amendment to provide a new Sub-section (6):
This section shall not apply to a building which is the property of public undertakers, unless it is used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, show room, or office.
etc. That is to say, it is not to apply to buildings which are used for containing apparatus for the purpose of providing gas, electricity or other essential matters for the community.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 14, leave out from "authority," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
(2) Where the local authority serve a notice under the foregoing sub-section on an owner of a building, they shall at the same time require him to furnish within two weeks thereafter a written statement specifying the name and address of the superior under whom such owner holds, and of the holder of any heritable security over the owner's interest in the building, and the local authority shall as soon as may be after receipt of such statement serve on any person whose name is included therein notice of the time and place at which the question of demolishing the building will be considered.
(3) Any person on whom a notice is served in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be entitled to be heard when the question of demolishing the building to which the notice relates is taken into consideration.

In line 26, at the end, insert:
(5) If any person fails to give the local authority any information required by them under sub-section (2) of this section or knowingly makes any misstatement with reference thereto he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(6) This section shall not apply to a building which is the property of public undertakers, unless it is used for the purposes of a dwelling-house, showroom, or office, or which is the property of a local authority."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 54.—(Effect of resolution for demolition of obstructive building.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 10, leave out "this section," and insert "the last foregoing sub-section."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 58.—(Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary.)

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 43, line 33, after "Department," to insert
on an application for an authorisation under this section being made to them by the owner of the land and the authority.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment to make it plain that Clause 58, which deals with arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance areas is found to be unnecessary, shall only operate when all the parties are in agreement. The Department can only take the action provided for in the Clause for relieving an authority from the necessity of purchasing land in a clearance area when the owner of the land and the authority are in agreement that purchase is not necessary, and make a joint application to the Department under the Clause. I think that it is unnecessary to say more, except that the rest of the Amendments are also drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 9, leave out "enter into such agreements," and insert:
discontinue proceedings for the purchase of the land on their being satisfied that such agreements have been or will be entered into by all necessary parties.

In line 15, leave out from "1930," to the end of the paragraph.

In line 17, leave out from "Where," to "shall," in line 19, and insert:
an agreement has been entered into with the local authority for the purposes of this section, the authority.

In line 21, at the end, insert:
(3) Sub-section (3) of section ten of the Act of 1930 shall cease to have effect."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 61.—(Restriction of use of land after clearance order becomes operative.)

9.4 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 45, line 24, after "purposes," to insert:
(which expression includes the erection or placing on land of a hut, tent, caravan, or other temporary or movable form of shelter).
This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. It interpolates in Sub-section (1) the provision at present contained in Sub-section (2), and the Amendment is necessary in view of the proposal contained in an Amendment which will be moved on the recommittal of the Bill to ease the restrictions to be imposed on the use of cleared land by giving an aggrieved owner power within a period of three months to require the local authority to purchase the land except where restriction relates to huts, tents and caravans.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 45, line 34, leave out Sub-section (2).—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 68.—(Bye-laws.)

9.5 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 48, line 7, at the end, to insert:"
(f) the sub-division of houses.
The sub-division of houses was a matter in respect of which it was originally proposed to enable local authorities to make by-laws. In the recasting of the Clause in Committee, however, this matter was inadvertently omitted. Without altering in any way any pledges and undertakings given we now propose to insert this Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have a note in my copy of the Bill in its original form against item (c), as it then was, to the effect that it was to be omitted. I have not gathered from my hon. Friend why it is being reinserted.

Mr. SKELTON: My information does not carry me so far as my Noble Friend's note. I do not think that there is any difficulty about reinsertion. It was not one of the powers that was objected to. It was only omitted by mistake. How-ever, I will have the matter looked into
again, and if I am wrong we will put the matter right in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

9.8 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 48, line 22, at the end, to insert:
A bye-law made under paragraph (iii) of this Sub-section shall not, in so far as it requires the execution of works, be enforceable as regards an existing house, unless the local authority have served on the owner of the house a notice requiring the execution of the works and such notice has become operative in pursuance of Section twenty of the Act of 1930, as applied by the next succeeding Sub-section.
This Amendment and the following Amendment deal with by-laws so far as those by-laws are applicable to existing houses. The Clause as originally framed led to a good deal of apprehension in Scotland. It was suggested that there was an intention to set up a new standard as regards housing. That was not the intention. When the matter was discussed in Committee the Government were urged to amend the Clause so as to give some right of appeal to the sheriff by way of a civil process. There appeared to be some difficulty in acceeding to that request, but on reconsideration we came to the conclusion that it was possible to do it. It was, however, only possible to do it if we did it in the way now, proposed. Instead of the by-laws being applicable to existing houses in the way that by-laws usually are, we thought that it would be reasonable before the owner of an existing house was required to execute any works in virtue of a by-law that notice of the requirement should be given to him. Following on that we propose to use the machinery already set up with regard to closing orders and demolition orders in earlier Acts, to enable the owner to have a right of appeal by civil process, and not simply through prosecution for breach of by-law. We use the existing machinery for that purpose, and the Amendments are to give effect to that intention.

9.11 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to be captious, but I cannot help regarding this Amendment with some anxiety. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, the Clause as originally introduced created a great deal of concern, because
it made all its various provisions applicable to existing houses as well as to new houses. It was regarded as a very important concession when, in the Committee stage, we divided up the various matters that had to be dealt with by by-laws and in regard to the last six of those matters made then only applicable to new houses, and, so far as was reasonably practicable, to existing houses. That Amendment allayed a great deal of apprehension. Now, apparently, those six matters which come under paragraph (iii) of this Sub-section are to be enforceable as regards the existing houses if the local authority has served on the owner of the house a notice requiring the execution of works, and such notice has become operative in virtue of Section 20 of the Act of 1930 as applied by the next succeeding Subsection. That does not seem to me to be the same thing as "reasonably practicable." Surely, "reasonably practicable" means that the local authority have to consider all the circumstances of the case and not to act unless in their considered judgment it is reasonably practicable for the owner to carry out the works that are necessary.

9.14 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Amendment which I have moved does not affect the question of reasonable practicability. Reasonable practicability remains, but if the local authority require the owner to execute certain works then it is open to the owner in a civil process to appeal against that requirement and to show that it is not reasonably practicable that he should execute those works.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 31, at the end, insert:
(2) Section twenty of the Act of 1930 (which relates to appeals against orders and the date of coming into operation of orders) shall apply to a notice under the last foregoing sub-section in like manner as if it were a notice under Part II of the said Act."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 69.—(Provisions as to caravans and other movable forms of shelter.)

9.16 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 49, line 13, to leave out "during the period of three," and to insert:
or a site in the immediate vicinity for a period of two.
As the Clause stands the provisions with regard to temporary or movable shelters apply to those which have been on the same site for three years, and it has been thought by various local authorities that this period was too long. We, therefore, propose to reduce it to two years. We have also included the words "or a site in the immediate vicinity." This is to deal with the hut or caravan owner who shifts his hut or caravan just a short distance.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—(Extinction of rights of way in advance of purchase.)

9.18 p.m.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 49, line 25, to leave out "the authority take possession of the land," and to insert "the buildings on the land are vacated."
The Clause provides that a local authority may extinguish or cause to be extinguished a right of way in advance of purchase, an extension of the power under the Act of 1930. The Amendment is put forward chiefly in the interests of public undertakers who supply gas, water and electricity to houses on the land in respect of which the rights of way are extinguished. It is desirable that these undertakers should have a right of access to the pipes and mains as long as the houses which they are supplying are occupied. It may be necessary for them to deal with these pipes in order to prevent fire, flood or explosion.

Mr. GUY: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We are prepared to accept this Amendment. It is reasonable that these public undertakers should be able to continue to supply the occupiers of houses until the houses are vacated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 49, line 27, leave out "thereafter," and
insert "after that date."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 73.—(Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities, etc.)

9.21 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 51, line 3, after "may," to insert:
and if required by the Department shall.
In Committee an Amendment was moved to insert the word "shall" for the word "may" in Sub-section (2), and this Amendment, if accepted, will place the duty on every housing authority to appoint a local advisory committee to advise them on matters such as the layout of houses and planning. Of the 220 housing authorities in Scotland 170 are small burghs, some of them very small indeed, mere villages, and their housing needs are negligible. It is unreasonable that these small burghs should be forced to appoint a housing advisory committee, but where the size of the burgh seems to make it a suitable case to have a housing committee the Department of Health may require them to have one. The House will agree that this is a wise proposal. In the larger towns no doubt great advantages will occur from having an advisory committee to give technical advice. Where you have such a large increase in the number of houses it is a real problem to see that, so far as possible, the suburbs of the larger cities are planned as wisely as possible from the artistic and aesthetic point of view. That is a matter of increasing importance, but it is one which I fear has been somewhat overlooked since the War. We are anxious that it should not be disregarded and that is the reason for the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 74.—(Power of Department in event of failure of local authority to exercise powers.)

Amendments made: In page 51, line 20, leave out "is directed."

In line 22, after "1919," insert "is directed."—[Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 76.—(Amendment of Part 11 of Third Schedule to Act of 1930.)

9.24 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 52, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert:
(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph one of Part II of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1930:

(a) If the arbiter is satisfied with respect to any premises that the rental thereof was enhanced by reason of their being used for illegal purposes the compensation shall, so far as it is based on rental, be based on the rental which would have been obtainable if the premises were occupied for legal purposes;
(b) If the arbiter is satisfied with respect to any premises that the rental thereof was higher than that generally obtained at the time for similar premises in the locality and that such enhanced rental was obtained by reason of the premises being overcrowded within the meaning of Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, the compensation shall, so far as it is based on rental, be based on the rental so generally obtained."

In Committee some fears were expressed with regard to Sub-section (1) as the Bill was drafted and, therefore, it had been thought advisable, in order to meet these fears, to delete that Subsection and substitute for it the proposal in paragraphs (a) and (b) on the Order Paper. The purpose is to meet the case, probably seldom arising, of the bad landlord who pushes up the rent by allowing his house to be overcrowded. It may very seldom occur, but it is a case which must be provided for. Stated shortly the effect of the Amendment is that the Arbitor in a case of overcrowding has, first of all, to satisfy himself that the house is overcrowded. Then he has to satisfy himself that the rent which is being charged has been enhanced because of the overcrowding. He can only do that by comparing the rent with that charged for similar accommodation in the locality; he can only ascertain that it is an enhanced rent by so comparing it. Then he has to go one step further. Having satisfied himself that the house is overcrowded and that the rent is an enhanced rent, he has to satisfy himself that the enhanced rent is due to the overcrowding. With these safeguards, I think hon. Members will be satisfied that the provision is one which is only going to deal with the bad landlord who purposely charges an enhanced rent because he allows overcrowding.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(inquiries to be held by person selected from a panel.)

9.26 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 53, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(3) This section shall come into operation on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make this Clause operate at a later date than the rest of the Bill for the simple reason that the Commissioners who are to be appointed to hold public inquiries are to be selected from a panel set up by the Lord President of the Court of Session and others. It is to allow time after the rest of the Bill comes into operation for this panel to be constituted. For that reason, the operation of the Clause is postponed until 1st November.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 78.—(Protection for superiors of and holders of heritable securities over subjects included in clearance or compulsory purchase orders or redevelopment plans.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 53, line 20, to leave out "or approval."
This Amendment and the subsequent Amendments are consequential on the Amendment made to Clause 15, in page 9, to leave out lines 33 and 34, and to insert the words there agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 53, line 22, leave out from "1930," to "the," in line 23, and insert:
or of the provisions of Part I of this Act relating to re-development areas.

In line 25, leave out "or plan."

In line 28, leave out from "subjects," to end of sub-section, and insert—
(2) Where a local authority are required by sub-section (3) of section fifteen of this Act to serve a notice regarding a re-development plan on the owner of any subjects they shall require such owner to furnish a written statement specifying the name and address of the superior of, and the holder of any heritable security over, those subjects.
(3) A local authority to whom the name and address of any person has been furnished in pursuance of either of the two foregoing sub-sections by the owner of any subjects shall serve on that person the like notice as they are required to serve on the owner.

In line 32, leave out "the last foregoing sub-section," and insert "subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of this section."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 79.—(Power of local authority to make allowances to shopkeepers in respect of loss in certain cases.)

9.30 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 53, line 38, after "provisions," to insert "of Part I."
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. As the Clause stands, it provides for allowances to be given to shopkeepers as a result of the action taken by a local authority "under the re-development provisions of this Act." What is meant is action taken for the re-development of an area by the local authority themselves under Part I of the Bill. Actually there are provisions in Part IV enabling owners to re-develop their own property with the approval of the authority and it is therefore necessary, as the Amendment proposes, to limit the reference in the Clause to Part I operations.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 80.—(Provisions as to apparatus of statutory undertakers in land dealt with by local authority under the Housing (Scotland) Acts.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 54, line 6, to leave out "statutory" and to insert "public."
This Amendment and the succeeding Amendments to the Clause are in accordance with the explanation given already. We are substituting "public" for "statutory" undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

Two consequential Amendments made.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 55, line 26, to leave out "their expense," and to insert "the expense of the authority."
This is really a verbal Amendment to prevent any argument as to who is to bear the cost of the removal or alteration of apparatus.

Mr. GUY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 56, line 6, leave out "statutory," and insert "public."—[Sir G. Collins.]

In page 56, line 8, after "of," insert "the foregoing provisions of."—[Mr. Ross Taylor.]

Two consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 84.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 58, line 20, at the end, to insert: "and the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931:
'Apparatus' means sewers, drains, culverts, watercourses, mains, pipes, valves, tubes, cables, wires, transformers, and other apparatus laid down or used for or in connection with the carrying, conveying, or supplying to any premises of a supply of water, water for hydraulic power, gas or electricity, and standards and brackets carrying street lamps.
These are Amendments of the definition Clause. The first one is to make the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1919 to 1933, include the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, which have not hitherto been included in the definition. The purpose of including the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts in this definition is because the Department has power to withhold Exchequer contributions where the local authority fails to discharge any duty or fails to exercise any power which ought to be exercised under these Acts. The matter was discussed fully in Committee and my right hon. Friend then gave an assurance that the Department's powers in relation to these particular Acts would be reinforced, as is now being done.
The Amendment that follows deals with the definition of "apparatus." It is used in Clause 80, a new Clause which was added in Committee, and makes provision in regard to the apparatus of statutory undertakers in land dealt with by local authorities under the Housing (Scotland) Acts. It was not possible to add the definition in Committee after the definition Clause had been passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 59, line 5, at the end, insert:
'Public undertakers' means any corporation, company, body, or person carrying on a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, or other public undertaking";
'Superior' includes the creditor in a ground annual."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 57, page 43, line 10, and Clause 61, page 45, line 29, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins.—[Mr. Skelton.]

Bill considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 57.—(Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.)

9.38 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 43, line 10, after "times," to insert:
or, if the house is occupied by an owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by a member of his family continuously during the three years immediately before the date on which the order is confirmed, two and two-fifths times).
Clause 57 recognises that some owners of houses which are unfit for human habitation by reason of inherent sanitary defects have endeavoured to make the best of the property, and it proposes to give special allowancs to those landlords, as distinct from other landlords who have allowed their property to sink into an unfit state without making any reasonable effort to maintain it. The amount of the allowances to be given is based on the assumption, in the first place, that an average yearly expenditure of one-fifth of the rateable value of the house is a normal incident of ownership and gives rise to no claim for special treatment. Accordingly paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of the Clause proposes that the allowance for good maintenance shall be confined to the extent to which expenditure on repairs, etc., has exceeded that fraction of one-fifth, or in other words, over a period of five years the extent to which it has exceeded the rateable value of the house.
The alternative basis of payment contained in paragraph (b), which lays down a minimum payment of one and one-fifth times the rateable value, has been put into the Bill to meet the case of small owners who may not be in a position to prove their expenditure over a period of five years. It is paragraph (b) that the Amendment proposes to alter in favour of owner-occupiers. If an owner-occupier has kept his house in good order he will be entitled to a minimum payment of two and two-fifths times the rateable value instead of one and one-fifth, as the Clause proposes at present. In addition he will, of course, receive site value, or will be left with the site of the house in his possession.
It is felt that the case of the owner-occupier deserves particular consideration in this respect. In the first place he is not a landlord in the usual sense of the term, but primarily an occupier. Generally he is a person of very slender
means who has invested his life's savings in acquiring the best home that he can afford. To dispossess him without an adequate allowance if he has done his best to maintain his house in good condition, would be in many cases to inflict real hardship, involving, in addition to the loss of savings, the uprooting of a home.
The interests of the owner-occupier are, therefore, more vitally affected than those of other owners. But there is a further distinction. It is a fundamental principle in the ordinary case that an unfit house has no value and that the owner should not be allowed, in the interests of public health and decency, to offer it in the house market. But the owner-occupier is not in the position of having caused injury to the health of others in this way or of having profited by trading an unsound commodity.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. MILNE: At an earlier stage to-night the Secretary of State justified one of his Amendments on the ground of what he termed the lack of precision which it is necessary to secure in these matters. That is my excuse for intervening now. This Clause confers on local authorities the discretion to order the payment of a grant in certain circumstances, and if an order for payment be made the amount is prescribed by the Statute. Accordingly if a dispute arises as to the amount it might become the subject-matter of litigation. Therefore, we must approach the language of this Amendment with the utmost caution. The Amendment provides that the grant should be paid if the house is occupied by the owner thereof and has been owned and occupied by him or by "a member of his family." In Part I of this Bill the expression "a member of his family" also occurs, and in Committee I drew attention to the lack of definition of that expression. I have not pursued the topic further because that part of the Bill deals with criminal matters, and I hope that the court in a criminal matter would place an indulgent interpretation on the expression.
Here we find the expression "member of a family" again introduced. This is not a criminal matter. This is a subject about which litigation might well arise between a local authority and the owner
of a dwelling-house—a dispute about pounds, shillings and pence. There is no definition of this expression "member of a family." Is a second cousin, an uncle or a step-mother to be regarded as a member of the family? I humbly submit that if we are to attain that degree of precision which is necessary in these matters this omission ought to be remedied in another place and some definition of this phrase provided in the Bill. Otherwise we shall be placing an unfair burden upon His Majesty's judges. If no such definition is supplied, then, of course, "it is an ill wind that blows naebody any good," and this will provide, in the language of the Parliament House in Edinburgh, "a dripping roast" for the lawyers.

9.46 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend is a material one because this expression is vague and requires definition, but I wish to draw attention to the main point of the Amendment, namely, the increased compensation proposed to one class of owners. I am pleased, as we are all pleased, that the concession which was given to the English owner-occupiers at a late stage in the proceedings on the English housing measure has now been extended to Scottish owner-occupiers, a class which stands to suffer considerably through the operation of the Bill. Two and two-fifths, however, of the rateable valuation is not at all high compensation. It represents a very few years purchase for anything of any capital value, and I regret that the concession, inconsiderable though it is, has not been extended to all owners. The Under-Secretary said that many owner-occupiers were persons of small means. That is true, but there are many persons of small means who do not come within the category of owner-occupiers and yet are owners of houses. There are many women whose fathers or husbands had invested their savings in house property, perhaps in one or two houses, and who are left with that property as their means of livelihood. The increased cost of upkeep since the War, combined with the fact that rents have not risen in proportion, means that much of this property has been yielding very little income. In many cases such properties represent the only source of income of the owner. There are many owners in Glasgow and elsewhere who stand to lose
most of their small means if this Bill goes through because much of their property is not in good condition, or even if it is in good condition—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The Noble Lady is now going far outside the Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was trying to show why the Amendment should be widened. The Under-Secretary also based his argument on the dictum that a house which had been declared to be unfit for human habitation had no value but with all respect I dispute that view. At a meeting of representatives of the small burghs in my constituency to discuss this Bill I asked them if there were any houses in their burghs which had been declared unfit for human habitation but were being used for any other purpose. I received answers of "Yes" from all round the table and I was told that there were such houses being used as garages, stores and so forth.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Again I must point out that the Noble Lady's argument has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was trying to meet the argument of the Under-Secretary but I have made my point and I am glad to have had the opportunity of doing so. I tried to move Amendments on this point in Committee and on the Report stage, but it was held that such Amendments would increase the charge on public funds and they were ruled out of order. I am very much disappointed that the point has not been given consideration and I would ask the Secretary of State before the Bill is discussed in another place to consider whether this concession could not be extended to owners in general, many of whom have very small means.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.50 p.m.

Mr. ALBERT RUSSELL: I regret that the Lord Advocate or some representative of the Government has not seen fit to make even a formal acknowledgment of the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne). It is perhaps ill becoming a
lawyer to tell the Government of a method of avoiding litigation but none the less my hon. and learned Friend has had the courage to do so. Obviously there are no phrases which lend themselves more to ambiguity than phrases like "a member of the family." May we have some assurance that the Government will look into this matter and if they think it ought to be cleared up, take the necessary steps in another place to do so?

9.51 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry that my hon. Friend should think that I had acted with any discourtesy but I had made a note of the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. I know the difficulty but I know that this phrase has been carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State and the Lord Advocate. They appreciate very well the difficulties involved and my hon. Friends may rest assured that, when they raise a definite point such as this, the matter will be looked into to see if a more satisfactory form of words can be found.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Restriction of use of land after clearance order becomes operative.)

9.48 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 45, line 29, to leave out from "land," to end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
(not being a restriction or condition relating exclusively to the erection or placing on the land of huts, tents, caravans, or other temporary or movable forms of shelter) may, at any time within three months after the restriction or condition is imposed, require the authority to purchase the land at a price to be assessed, failing agreement, as if it were compensation for a compulsory purchase, by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section twelve of the Act of 1930.
Under Clause 61 when a clearance order becomes operative a prohibition is put on the use of land for building purposes except subject to such restrictions and conditions as the local authority may impose. There may be cases in which it is desirable that land should not be built upon at all but should remain as an open space, and the conditions imposed by the local authority may be tantamount to a
complete prohibition of building. The result is that the land cleared of buildings remains the property of the owner, but so far as any use that he can make of it is concerned, he might as well not be the owner. That is to say, the land is sterilised and it worthless to him. In such circumstances we thought it wise that there should be power to force the local authority to acquire the land, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended (on recommittal), considered; to be read the Third time to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

9.58 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This Bill has been fully discussed on previous stages, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) wishes to make a few observations upon it. Its financial basis has been outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Financial Secretary, as has the scheme of work which is referred to in the Schedule to the Bill. The scheme involves an expenditure of about £35,000,000 on a programme to be executed within the next five years. On the usual basis of calculation that the spending of £1,000,000 provides work for 4,000 men, this scheme will give employment on an average to 28,000 men a year for each of the next five years. A great diversity of industries will benefit, and orders will be distributed to the advantage of many localities. Labour in mechanical and electrical engineering, in building, and in all the trades which supply them will benefit. This will bring employment to skilled men, and also many unskilled men will benefit in clearing, digging, banking and track-laying. The plant, machinery and materials required will, so far as possible, be of United Kingdom origin, and preference is to be given to the special areas. Permanently in-
creased demands for electricity will result, and we have the assurance of the board that nothing will be done in connection with the reorganisation of their electrical requirements except after consultation with the Minister of Transport.
It is, however, as a lasting convenience to passengers that this scheme must be regarded. It has been devised for bringing relief to the most congested areas. Those who look at the census figures will see with what rapidity the districts within five miles of Charing Cross are being emptied in favour of the districts further out. Much of the overcrowding which has been experienced will be relieved as a result of this scheme. I think that it has met with the general approval of the House, the only criticism being that there are other areas which might have desired the benefits of the Bill. I am sure that those areas will not begrudge the additional advantages which will come to the selected areas, and, as far as the Board and the companies are concerned, within the limits of economy and practicability, they will as circumstances allow undertake further schemes. In the meantime, not only may Members from the constituencies concerned rejoice, but Members from constituencies in all parts of the country may genuinely welcome this scheme, which is to distribute employment on so large a scale throughout the country. The moral is that it is worth while that the Government should have good credit, because it is only by the restoration of credit that it has been possible for the Government to give this guarantee, which is to redound to the advantage of all parts of the country.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would call me to order if I tried to follow the Minister of Transport down the slippery slope of Government propaganda, and I do not intend to do so. I noticed an earlier phrase of his which it would be very tempting for me to follow up. He referred to the work of unskilled bankers, but that, again, I do not wish to follow. We are entirely in favour of this work being done, and I think that the Minister of Transport is lucky in not having had this proposal weighed up by a committee presided over by Sir George May, because I am sure that, weighing it with the scales with which he weighed other schemes, he would have said that this
was one of those wild cat, unprofitable schemes that ought to be turned down. We must recognise that these reforms on the London railway system are long overdue. The reasons for their being so long delayed are two: first, the failure to bring unity into the London traffic arrangements, and, second, the failure of the profit motive. The attempt to leave the provision of transport facilities in the Greater London area to the profit motive has resulted in neglect of all kinds of areas, particularly East London, to which I want to refer directly.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that you need credit in order to deal with a scheme like this. The fact is that these last three or four years you have had masses of money lying unused at the banks, and it is only by fulfilling the needs of the community by State action that you can take advantage of the national credit. This guarantee is the provision by the State of travelling facilities for Greater London. What an enormous waste has occurred because this was not done before London grew so big. The trouble is that we have not hitherto had any real planning of Greater London in reference to housing, to industry, and to travelling facilities, and this comes, as most things come, too late for London. London is always growing, and we provide what is necessary for its education, so to speak, about two or three years too late. If only transport had been regarded as a social service and not as a subject for profit-making, all this kind of work might have been done long ago.
Frankly, on the finance of this scheme, I do not think it likely that the undertakers will be in a position to pay off all this money in 15 years' time. It has been pointed out in several parts of the House that if there was a profit in this thing there would not have been any need for the Government to guarantee the money. But I am not going to quarrel with the Government over that. Let us have the transport facilities, and we can deal with the other matter when it comes up. Perhaps by that time we shall have nationalised all transport facilities, and if not, then we shall perhaps have the Government explaining that they have guaranteed something which after all they have had to pay out, because there have been no profits. I am sure that if they endeavour to re-
coup themselves for it by raising fares, there will be a revolt in East and North-East London.
Perhaps the most important feature of the work that is to be done under this Bill is the abolition of certain terminal points in London. As I judge it, we are to get more through travelling. London transport has suffered in the past, perhaps inevitably, from the idea that what was required was to bring people from outer London and dump them down in two particular centres, the City and Westminster—to bring them out from the dormitories and dump them into the work places. London has altered enormously of recent years, however. You have had a tremendous development of manufacturing centres in various parts of London. The City and Westminster business centres have extended widely, and they are not so important as they used to be as compared with the rest of London, and we have not got, especially from the East, the through travelling facilities to the newer developing parts of London that we want. The real difficulties of transport in London are two—first of all, the peak load and, secondly, the congestion at the various termini. The London termini are congested to-day by people who have to get out there in order to change and go somewhere else. Therefore, the House will see the importance of the changes that are to be made at certain stations.
This brings me to a point that I want to emphasise, and that is the condition of the old East London area. We have heard a good deal, and rightly, about the terrible conditions of travel from Ilford, Walthamstow, and other places, but I think the old East London suffers perhaps as much as any other area. In the Tower Hamlets we have two dead-end stations, Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street, and we have two main arteries, that both meet at Aldgate Pump. You have a population coming in from the East just at those points, and those terminal points, Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street, mean that the people have to come tumbling out there if they want to go on to the West. They are terrible old railways. The only through one is the District Railway. I do not know whether hon. Members have tried to get out of a District railway train at Stepney Green or Mile End. It is a pretty fair fight to get in and a pretty
fair fight to get out. If I want to get to my constituency in the evening, I have the chance of fighting to get on a train or fighting to get on a tram. I have the possibility of finding a train from Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street, an appalling train, and more often than not I find it simplest to walk down Commercial Road.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has described the conditions in Bow, and I want to point out the conditions in Stepney. You have that terrible old railway that runs along from Fenchurch Street. It blocks out our light and air, its trains are appalling, and it does not lead anywhere in particular at either end; and you have the Liverpool Street line, on which I do not need to expatiate. The Great Eastern Railway has been talked of a good deal by Members in this House, but it always gives up the ghost in foggy weather. That is the other end of my constituency, and then a huge mass of population depends on the trams and buses. What we want is a tube right down Commercial Road, leading right through to the West, and we need more communication North and South as well. In my constituency, if we want to take children anywhere for a bit of fresh air, we have to take them through a tunnel under the river to the South side.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of emptying out to areas five miles out, but he must not forget that we have still an enormous population left within the five miles range, and those people are more neglected than they are in the outer areas, first, because those areas were built up before effective travelling facilities came along, and secondly because, if you live in an inner area and are lucky enough to have a station, when you get on to the platform you find the train is always filled as tight as it can be with the people who have come in from the outer areas. We shall never get over that until we stop having a series of dead ends, until we get through travel and electrical travel, and until in East London we put our railways underground. Under this Bill we are undoubtedly going to get some advantage along the Mile End direction and in other parts of East London, but the big area between the Mile End Road and the Thames is absolutely neglected.
In conclusion, we ought to realise that rail traffic and road traffic are, in essence, only extensions of roads, that the provision of this rail programme is of the same nature as the provision of the road programme, and that we cannot expect to make a direct profit out of providing transport facilities. To do him justice, I do not think the Minister of Transport expects that these schemes will be commercially profitable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has "pinched" his money, and the Minister of Transport has in return managed to get a guarantee out of the Chancellor, although he knows pretty well that they will not be able to pay up. But he ought not to expect individual transport undertakings in London to show a profit. We must consider London transport as a whole, and regard the provisions of these transport facilities in this Bill as a social service and not as a means of making profit. The real relief will come in facilitating housing, health and amenities For these reasons we welcome this tardy, perhaps almost deathbed, conversion of the Government to a policy of public works, and only regret that it should not be on a more considerable scale.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The Minister of Transport made a reference to distressed areas in his speech. I wonder whether his Department have considered the number of men now living in the distressed areas who may be absorbed by these works, especially craftsmen.

10.17 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I think I can speak as sympathetically as the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), because I also sit for one of the constituencies which are affected by the bad travelling facilities to which he referred. Nevertheless, I was glad to see that he rejoices with me that a beginning is at last being made to put these facilities on a better basis. The right hon. Gentleman made some reference to the finance of the scheme, but I would point out to him that being able now, owing to the policy of the Government, to get cheap money, we are able to save some million a year, because 5 per cent., which was the rate of interest when the right
hon. Gentleman's Government was in office, has now become 2½ per cent., and a little calculation will show that that will save some million a year. The Aldgate East improvements which are in the Schedule of this Bill will allow passengers from the Upminster district to short-circuit the City and go direct to the West End, and I think that will effect an improvement in the conditions of which the right hon. Gentleman has complained when he said people who really want to go in the direction of the West End of London are brought into the City and have to change.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about trams. We estimate that the scheme to substitute trolley vehicles for trams will affect some 265,000,000 passengers, and I know as he does, sitting for a London constituency, that that will be a great improvement for the people who use the streets of London. We believe these schemes will be profitable, whatever he may say. We believe that in five years time the schemes will begin to pay for themselves. This is not a charitable undertaking but a proper business proposition and can only be carried out by a proper business Government. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with me and see how important it is that these matters should be on a business basis. Like other hon. Members, I know how disappointing it is that these schemes cannot embrace the whole of London. The companies had to consider which, in their opinion, were the most important. In some of the places which are now to be served, enormous housing schemes have been carried out of recent years, and this scheme will enable people who are very badly served at present to have the travelling facilities which they require.
I find that Ilford has increased in the last 10 years by 50 per cent., Romford by 85 per cent., and Dagenham by the astounding figure of 879 per cent. Some of us would like to have seen the scheme extended to other places, but, in view of figures like those, we realise that those places have a claim which must be recognised in all quarters of the House. In concluding the Third Reading of this Bill, everyone will, I am sure, wish the scheme well, and will hope, as do some of us who sit for constituen-
cies which are not immediately benefited, that it is only the forerunner of even better things.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I would not have ventured to detain the House if the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whom I am sure we all congratulate upon his new appointment, had not chosen the occasion of the Bill, the substance of which was more or less agreed by all sides of the House, to make a speech which was nothing less than party propaganda. It was party propaganda based upon obvious fallacies and mis-statements of obvious facts, and it is impossible to allow a platform propaganda speech of that kind to pass without attempting to correct one or two of the mis-statements. The hon. and gallant Gentleman claimed a good deal of credit for the fact that the Government, having at last established the national credit on the basis of cheap money, have chosen this psychological moment to do this long overdue work. He forgot to inform us that two, if not three, years ago, money rates were as low as they are now; that this scheme, which has been urgently clamoured for by the neglected passengers of London, might have been started three years ago at no extra cost, in fact, at a great saving of public money, because those who would have been employed upon it would have been earning wages instead of drawing the dole; that three years delay has cost the country a very great deal of money and that the responsibility for delaying the scheme for three years, after the lowest point at which money has ever been, is the responsibility of the present Government.
That was followed by another fallacy that this will be a highly profitable enterprise, a denial of the fact that the Government have now entered upon a policy of public works—the repudiation of which policy was the main plank in their election platform—and an assertion that the scheme is now being undertaken because at this precise moment, different from every other moment, it becomes a paying proposition. Why, then, the Government guarantee? Why is it necessary to guarantee an advance of capital for an enterprise which is clearly going to return an interest on the capital involved? Surely it is obvious that it is only because the profits of this
enterparise are questionable and because the investing public have not the faith in ability of the enterprise to earn its own interest, that the Government are called upon to guarantee the rate of interest which is offered. This is a State subsidy to private enterprise—a subsidy in the form of a guarantee of interest which is so questionable that the investing public will not trust it. It is nonsense, if I may say so without offence, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to claim that this is going to be a self-supporting enterprise. If it were so obviously a self-supporting enterprise, there would have been no need to come to this House at all. He then claims credit for a great deal of Government enterprise. But this is not Government enterprise; this is company enterprise.
If this had been Government enterprise, if the Minister of Transport were really able to claim credit for it, we should have seen an extension of the planning of London's transport; we should have seen him carrying on the good work which his predecessor commenced. He would have brought into the area of the London Passenger Transport Board the whole of London's passenger transport. He would have made that a public service. But that has not been done. To the agreement which forms the Schedule to the Bill, the London Passenger Transport Board is only one of the parties. The rest of them are private-enterprise companies operating for profit, and, when they cease to earn a profit, they come to the Government for a guarantee of their capital. This is not public enterprise; this is private enterprise subsidised by Government credit. If there is a profit, the shareholders will take the profit; if there is a loss, the public will bear the loss. It is exactly the sort of public enterprise in which this Government believe—a subsidy to private profit-making enterprise on the basis of "Heads I win, tails you lose." I feel certain that, when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues begin to realise what the public really think about this scheme, they will appreciate that, instead of being full of gratitude, the London public are asking why it was not done before—why it is that, with hundreds of thousands of people in the London area out of work, and with money so cheap that it ceases to be usable at all, the Government should
have waited years before they set on foot an enterprise of this character. I sincerely hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that a little more initiative and pace and public spirit is necessary before he can get away with a statement of that character.

10.29 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) to pass without comment. If he had studied the finance proposed in the Bill, which was fully explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Financial Resolution, he would have seen that the Government are not playing a game of "Heads we win, tails you lose." The Government are launching, in this proposal, an entirely new proposition. The Leader of the Opposition referred to it as Socialism—

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Oh, yes, he did. If he looks at his own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that he said he supported it because it was Socialism. I can see nothing Socialistic in it at all. The Government, having created cheap credit in this country, are using that cheap credit to support private enterprise, without the least chance of losing a "bob" themselves. Surely we in this House must approve of a Government that within three years has placed the country in such a position that money can be raised so cheaply as to enable it to be advanced to this private enterprise. The hon. Member asks: "Why cannot the private enterprise raise the money itself?" It cannot raise it because, if it went into the market to borrow the money, it has debentures and all sorts of first charges, and it cannot make this a first charge. But the Government are guaranteeing the funds and, therefore, they can borrow the money cheaply and pay it back, and they will easily pay it back out of their profits.

Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether it is now a first charge or not?

Sir G. HAMILTON: Certainly the Government will get a first charge. It is all stated in the Fnancial Resolution. Private enterprise has to hand over debentures and so on if anything goes wrong, but neither the Government nor
private enterprise anticipates that within 15 years the transport companies will have the least difficulty in paying the money back. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) made a most extraordinary speech. He said, "Here are the Government interfering with transport, and they will lose whatever they are putting in." I suppose he would advise them not to do it; yet in the next sentence he said, "We believe in the nationalisation of all the railways." Then he is prepared to tell the people of the country that in his view all the railways ought to be nationalised, that is, to become a charge on the State, although he thinks that even in this small venture the Government are going to lose their £35,000,000. That is a nice thing to tell the country and I hope the country, and especially the people in Stepney, will note it with great care.
On the last occasion the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) said he had read a speech by the passenger superintendent of the London and North Eastern Railway. He said he was not reading the whole speech but he was extracting what suited his argument. His argument was that the passenger superintendent said that even electrification would not solve the problem of carrying passengers from Liverpool Street to Ilford. Of course that is true. I have preached it on every platform in my constituency. The London and North Eastern Railway with steam transport has more wheels passing over the lines at Liverpool Street Station than pass over the lines anywhere else in the world. If the hon. Member appreciates that fact, he realises the necessity not only of electrification there but of the tubes, and of course that is the solution. The passenger superintendent is quite right. With electrification the trains from Liverpool Street will be able to carry only 40 extra passengers per train, which is no use to the extraordinary demands on the service, but with 40 extra passengers per train and a tube taking the passengers on an entirely different route underground, the solution is obvious and the benefit to those who live in the area will be very considerable. The House must feel that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to draw red herring across the path of the Government. The hon. Member for East Fulham, who very ably puts his points, is really supporting the Bill,
but he likes to hear his own voice, and in that great desire he will try to put points with which I am sure the majority of the House do not agree.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: As to what I said in the Second Reading Debate, that is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and what I have said I have said. On that occasion I made the point which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), and which was made by an hon. Gentleman on one of the back benches the other night on the Second Reading. I spoke on the Money Resolution. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. Assheton) said, in the shortest speech which I have ever heard in this House, that if this were a commercial and paying concern the money would have been raised without any guarantee from the Government. I tried to say that, but he said it much better than I could. That is the fact, and it is my case and that of my hon. Friends, and neither the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton), nor either of the Ministers who has spoken to-night can get over the fact that private enterprise has entirely failed to give London the transport services it needs, and is being obliged to come, to be bolstered up by the credit of the nation to enable it to raise this money. It is no use hon. Members making propaganda speeches about cheap money and saying what a great Government it is to have brought about cheap money, because the financial experts—and I am quite sure the one who walked up the Floor to-day—all agree that money is so cheap because nobody knows where to invest it safely.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (WATER AND SEWERAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a simple departmental Bill to enable local authorities to spread the repayment of the money which they borrow
for public works and water supply and sewers over 60 years. It is a purely non-controversial Bill, and will help certain local authorities in. Scotland.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no objection to the Bill passing, and I do not object to the principles contained in it, but I wish to ask a question with regard to sewerage disposal. The Secretary of State for Scotland knows that, particularly on the Clyde, there has been a good deal of controversy for a number of years because Glasgow, being a big city, has met its obligations with regard to sewerage disposal. I understand that the Bill make the borrowing for sewerage purposes easier than has been the case, and that therefore town councils, and particularly burghs which have not such adequate resources as the city of Glasgow, which have been precluded from carrying out sewerage schemes may now be able to do so. There are such places as Paisley and other parts. Whereas Glasgow carried out sewerage schemes, other towns continued to put sewerage into the main river. Now that the funding of debt is to be extended for 60 years, and will therefore make borrowing easier, I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends in the near future, with the backing of the new Bill, to take any steps to see that these small authorities in different parts of Scotland who have not seen fit to adopt proper sewerage schemes now do so.
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will agree that there are many places without sewerage schemes. They are not merely hindering their own town, but they are having terrible effects on towns that have spent money on sewerage schemes. This Bill will be of little value unless active steps are taken to see that those towns that have not entered into sewerage commitments enter upon them at an early date. The Secretary of State for Scotland already has executive power to see that local authorities do this, and I would ask him, alongside his Bill, to exercise the executive power that he possesses and to see that in regard to sewerage, the small towns particularly are brought to a much better position than they are in at the present time.

10.41 p.m.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Bill will enable local authorities to do the work which the hon. Member mentions, and I will take every available step possible, by way of encouragement and pressure, to impress those local authorities which are not moving in this direction to proceed with schemes, so that the sewage problem throughout Scotland may be dealt with.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the last occasion that this Bill was before the House I raised a point, and I will raise it again when the Bill goes upstairs. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot, however, blame me if I raise the matter now. I had no idea that the Bill was to come on to-night. I thought that it was to be taken on Thursday. During the 13 years that I have been a Member of the House I have been interested in the question of criminal lunatics, and I would ask the Secretary of State to review this subject. The main proposition of the Bill is the building of a new asylum. I am not against that. The quarters at Perth are shocking. The whole place is bad, and a new asylum is necessary. Therefore, I welcome the Bill. But I take this opportunity of raising the question of the treatment of criminal lunatics, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether the position cannot be reviewed. It certainly calls for comment.
A person may be charged with having committed a crime in the ordinary way. On the day of the trial the defence is made that at the time of the commission of the offence the person was insane. Therefore, the Procurator-Fiscal certifies that he is unfit to plead. Such a person has not been found guilty of the crime but only guilty of being unfit to plead. As a consequence that person is taken to a criminal lunatic asylum and detained for an unlimited period. The offence
may have been a simple one of stealing, for which the sentence might have been perhaps a few months imprisonment, but because the person is deemed to be unfit to plead he is detained in a criminal lunatic asylum practically at His Majesty's pleasure. There ought to be power of liberation in respect of a person who is not certified as dangerous at the time when the sentence of committal was passed upon him. I give the case of a boy whose parents are decent people, his father fought for the country. The boy was charged with having committed an offence—I wrote to the Secretary of State about this case a few days ago—but was not sentenced. He was declared to be unfit to plead and has been retained in the asylum now for 12 months, although the crime which he was alleged to have committed would not have meant a sentence of more than three months. He is now detained for a period which looks like never coming to an end. The boy is not dangerous, he may be mentally defective, and I say that he should be transferred to an ordinary mental asylum.
In my view the liberty of the subject is endangered by the Bill. I know the reply will be made that it does not alter the present law. I admit that, but I say that when you are asking for an extension of the criminal lunatic law you should not confine it to one small part but should examine the whole question in much greater detail. This boy in the ordinary way would not have been sentenced to more than three months imprisonment, indeed, if some of the learned Gentlemen I see around were concerned in the case he probably may not have been sentenced at all, but because he is not fit to plead he has been kept in a criminal lunatic asylum for over a year. In my view the judge who would halve tried the lad should have been consulted and asked what sentence he would have passed. Then, at the end of that period, he should be sent to a civil lunatic asylum. If the particular local authority has not a convenient place to which to send such cases there are other authorities who have the accommodation and he could have been quite easily transferred.
Under the Bill power is given to two doctors to certify but it does not say whether they are to be prison doctors or departmental doctors. I am not critical of the medical profession, and so far as health insurance is concerned I do not
agree with the view that the medical profession do not do their work well. But, at the same time a doctor in a mental asylum may be the worst person to examine a patient. He has a mental complex because he works in the atmosphere of an asylum. We all get a complex in regard to our own work, indeed, I have been many times charged with being always prepared to defend the criminal and never able to see that he is wrong. It may be true, but here you have these people who have a mental complex, and you can hand over to two doctors with that complex the examination of this lad. Neither of the two doctors is qualified for that work. The doctor who examined the inmate should be taken from outside and be completely unknown to him. Secondly, the friends of the inmate should have a choice of doctor as well. They should have some right to place alongside the departmental doctor some other doctor whom they think fit to bring in.
I am not sure that I am not now going beyond my duty, but we are allowing this Bill a Second Reading because we believe that the new asylum is urgent. When we went upstairs for the Poor Law Bill, the Lord Advocate's predecessor, who has now gone to the bench and who is one of the finest men I have ever met in the House of Commons, met our amendments decently and well. It is because of my experience of that Bill that I do not divide on this to-night. I hope when we come to the Committee stage upstairs we shall be met with as much openness, frankness and decency as we were met with on the Poor Law Bill, because that modified my view about fighting things in Committee. It is because I think there is a chance of having this Bill decently amended, while getting the new asylum built, that I do not divide to-night. The matters I raise to-night are on behalf of a small section of the community. They may be mentally deficient, or criminal, but the more defenceless they are the more need there is for someone to say something on their behalf.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I want to deal with what is really a Committee point, but as it raises an important question of principle affecting the liberty of the subject, not dissimilar to points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I think it right that I should give notice of it at this stage. Under the Bill at present
those in prison may be removed to a criminal lunatic asylum on a certificate granted by two doctors, and an order pronounced by the Department. There is no intervention by the court and no application to a court. In the case where a prisoner is suspected of becoming insane while he is a prisoner, the court does intervene. There is the safeguard that all the formalities by the medical officers who are certifying a prisoner are fully complied with. But under the Bill as it reads now, there is no application to the court. I know that as regards the point raised by my hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate will say that this makes no change in the existing law, but by the Act of 1857 there was the intervention of the court. There was the additional safeguard, in the case of a prisoner suspected of being insane while a prisoner, of two certificates by two doctors, and there was an additional certificate granted by the sheriff on application to him. These three certificates then went before the Department, and the order was pronounced by the Department. It may be that an application to the court is merely a formality, but there may possibly be a case where both medical certificates may be granted by prison doctors. I do not wish to say anything against them, but it is important that one of the certificates should be by an outside practitioner, and it is just in case of any possibility of malpractice not confined to this particular point of detail that there should be scrutiny of the certificate by an independent tribunal. I shall raise this point in Committee, and I should like my right hon. Friend to consider it in the meantime.

10.56 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am glad that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) sees the necessity for building the new criminal lunatic asylum, because the existing department for criminal lunatics at Perth is quite inadequate for its purpose. The hon. Member raised a number of interesting and in some respects difficult points. The question of the treatment of those persons who, through insanity, are unable to plead, is really outside the scope of the Bill, because the Bill does not in any way deal with that class of person; but I Can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration
to what he has said, and will consider any further representations that may be made to him on that topic. On the last occasion when this Bill was discussed, and now, the interest centres round Clause 4. That Clause deals with one class at two different periods. It deals first of all with the sentenced prisoner who is serving a period of imprisonment in an ordinary prison, and who during that time unfortunately loses his sanity. At present there is power to have him transferred to the criminal lunatic asylum, where, of course, he will be properly looked after.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) raised the question as to what authority should be obtained before that could be done. That, of course, is a Committee point, and I am glad that he has given me notice that he intends to raise it. It will be considered and dealt with when the Bill reaches Committee. The other stage that Clause 4 deals with in Sub-section (2) is the stage when a lunatic's period of sentence has expired. The question then arises, what is to be done with him? If he should have recovered his sanity he is set free at once, but if he has not recovered his sanity the question remains whether or not he is to be taken into a criminal lunatic asylum or sent to an ordinary asylum. It is obvious that he cannot be set at liberty, more especially if he has any dangerous propensities. In fact, as the Clause stands, a certificate of two medical practitioners has to be obtained, within 14 days before the expiry of the sentence, instead of the 60 days. That is to say we are providing for up-to-date certification.
More than that, the certificate has to certify that the person is insane and that he cannot be set at liberty without danger to the public or himself and—this is an important provision—that it is advisable that he should be detained after the expiry of sentence in the criminal lunatic asylum rather than in any other asylum. We have had that power for a long time and it is interesting to note that it has only been exercised four or five times since 1920 or thereabouts. It has only been exercised in cases where to send the lunatic to an ordinary asylum would create danger not only to himself but to the persons in the asylum and where there would be danger if he escaped, which he might more readily do, from an
ordinary asylum than from a criminal lunatic asylum. It has been exercised in cases of men who have been convicted over and over again of brutal sexual assaults and cases of that kind. To meet the objection which the hon. Member for Gorbals has already entered, I may state now that we are prepared in Committee to make it a requirement of Sub-section (2) that one of the certificates shall be granted by a medical practitioner who is not in the prison service. Further, to make the matter quite clear, we are prepared to insert in the Bill, as a statutory provision, what at present is the administrative practice. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Milne) said the motto over the door of the asylum ought to be:
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
As a matter of administrative practice, every person in that asylum is medically examined and reported on to the Secretary of State every three months and wherever sanity is recovered or wherever a person can be discharged and put in the care of friends who are able to look after him release is granted. Therefore, my hon. and learned Friend ought to choose a better motto than the one he has chosen. The other point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals was with reference to the granting of permission for a man's own doctor or a doctor nominated by his relatives to make an examination. We are prepared to insert a provision to the effect that, before granting an order for detention, after expiry of sentence in the criminal lunatic asylum, the Secretary of State shall consider
along with the other certificates, any medical report by the man's own doctor.

Mr. MILNE: In order to make things quite clear, may I ask whether the Lord Advocate proposes to retain the power to detain in a criminal lunatic asylum a man after his sentence has expired?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Certainly, in the cases provided for in Sub-section (2) where it would be dangerous, not only to the man himself but to other people, to send him to an ordinary asylum where there are not the same facilities for preventing his escape or preventing him committing another crime. With these assurances, and with the assurance that I hope we shall be able to meet the points that may be raised in Committee with the same fair spirit as the hon. Member for Gorbals said my predecessor met him on a previous Bill, I trust that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.